Is there anything more disgusting than God?

[Cobol]

God is disgusting. He's a rapist, thief, lier, murderer, genocidal, and he's jealous and paranoid.
God is a disgusting piece of garbage!

I don't believe in god though, nor the idea of a god, or gods.

 

[Repox]

No... your point IS subject to dispute for it is a modern unproven theory... as one author put it "among post-Christians, liberal Christians, some mainline Christians, and secularists that the authors of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke"

Post-Christians = after Christians
Liberal Christians = not literal or strict : loose a liberal translation
SOME mainline = being at least one (dictionary.com) = hardly many
Secularists = : indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations

So your scholarly community is hardly mainstream.


IF and I do say IF there is no confirmations (which I disagree with totally) there is MUCH LESS confirmation of the Gospel of Q since there is no fragments or manuscripts -- only liberal viewpoints.


LOL = Great statement but you have produced one iota of evidence.


What differences?.


So, as a matter of fact, you still haven't produced one factual case to support your position other that liberal viewpoints with no "Gospel Q" from which they say they came from.

It is not my burden of proof, it is yours. You claim the NT gospels are authentic. My argument is they are not. I have presented the same rebuttal to the point of ad nausea.

In case you forgot, here is my proposal. Refute it..

It is historical when there are documents deemed acceptable according to academic, or professional standards. I don't make them up, they are derived from the scholarly community. My point is not subject to dispute because claims must be based on professional standards. There has not been any confirmation of NT gospel stories, just confirmation of Jesus sayings according prior gospels and The Gospel of Q. If you don't like the criteria, take it up with the professional community. There may have been additional gospels for confirmation but church officials destroyed them. Back then, officials were very intolerant, they decided what was "holy" and what was heresy.

Why don't you understand? You must have an evidential argument, otherwise it is a waste of time. You make nonsensical comments. When you criticize my scholarly community you criticize me!. You have said nothing of substance, just pretentiousness. Referring to me as a liberal is really stupid, it means you have no reply accept insults. I am not a liberal, I am a scholar with a professional resume. You have nothing to offer but nonsense and derisive statements.

My impression is you don't know what you are saying. You stated, "IF and I do say IF there is no confirmations (which I disagree with totally) there is MUCH LESS confirmation of the Gospel of Q since there is no fragments or manuscripts -- only liberal viewpoints."

If you were familiar with the Gospel of Q, you wouldn't say "only liberal viewpoints." It has nothing to do with "liberal viewpoints!" Q has been found in NT gospels. Evidently, you didn't know that.

You are wasting my time with nonsensical and pretentious replies.

 

[Kenny]

It is not my burden of proof, it is yours. You claim the NT gospels are authentic. My argument is they are not. I have presented the same rebuttal to the point of ad nausea.

You are too funny. It is YOU who claim there is a Gospel Q. It is YOUR burden of proof to prove it. At this point you have LIBERAL viewpoints of a non-existent, non-confirmed, no-manuscript Gospel Q.

I have the 4 Gospels that have been used since the first century plus Epistles. The evidence is read every day.

In case you forgot, here is my proposal. Refute it..

It is historical when there are documents deemed acceptable according to academic, or professional standards. I don't make them up, they are derived from the scholarly community. My point is not subject to dispute because claims must be based on professional standards. There has not been any confirmation of NT gospel stories, just confirmation of Jesus sayings according prior gospels and The Gospel of Q. If you don't like the criteria, take it up with the professional community. There may have been additional gospels for confirmation but church officials destroyed them. Back then, officials were very intolerant, they decided what was "holy" and what was heresy.

When considering the possibility of a Q gospel, it is important to remember that no evidence whatsoever has ever been found for the existence of a Q gospel. Not even a single manuscript fragment of Q has ever been found. None of the early church fathers mentioned anything that could have been the Q gospel. Second, there is strong evidence that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written between A.D. 50 and 65, not after A.D. 70. Many of the early church fathers attributed the Gospels to the Apostle Matthew, John Mark, and Luke the doctor. Third, since the Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, they were written by actual eyewitnesses of Jesus and/or close companions of eyewitnesses of Jesus. Therefore, it is natural that we should expect many similarities. If the Gospels record actual words spoken by Jesus, we should expect the eyewitnesses to report Jesus saying the same things.

Before you know it, you are going to say there is a National Anthem Q because so many people say the same thing.

Why don't you understand? You must have an evidential argument, otherwise it is a waste of time. You make nonsensical comments. When you criticize my scholarly community you criticize me!. You have said nothing of substance, just pretentiousness. Referring to me as a liberal is really stupid, it means you have no reply accept insults. I am not a liberal, I am a scholar with a professional resume. You have nothing to offer but nonsense and derisive statements.

My impression is you don't know what you are saying. You stated, "IF and I do say IF there is no confirmations (which I disagree with totally) there is MUCH LESS confirmation of the Gospel of Q since there is no fragments or manuscripts -- only liberal viewpoints."

If you were familiar with the Gospel of Q, you wouldn't say "only liberal viewpoints." It has nothing to do with "liberal viewpoints!" Q has been found in NT gospels. Evidently, you didn't know that.

You are wasting my time with nonsensical and pretentious replies.

It is obvious that no matter what evidence is supplied, you are stuck in what you believe.

I'll make you a deal... find me a parchment of the Gospel of Q.

 

[Willamena]

As an atheist, I have to admit that I find many things more disgusting than god.

Edit: In part, it's because disgust is blatantly maya, but it's also because there is no god, so nothing to genuinely get disgusted about.

 

[Repox]

You are too funny. It is YOU who claim there is a Gospel Q. It is YOUR burden of proof to prove it. At this point you have LIBERAL viewpoints of a non-existent, non-confirmed, no-manuscript Gospel Q.

I have the 4 Gospels that have been used since the first century plus Epistles. The evidence is read every day.



When considering the possibility of a Q gospel, it is important to remember that no evidence whatsoever has ever been found for the existence of a Q gospel. Not even a single manuscript fragment of Q has ever been found. None of the early church fathers mentioned anything that could have been the Q gospel. Second, there is strong evidence that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written between A.D. 50 and 65, not after A.D. 70. Many of the early church fathers attributed the Gospels to the Apostle Matthew, John Mark, and Luke the doctor. Third, since the Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, they were written by actual eyewitnesses of Jesus and/or close companions of eyewitnesses of Jesus. Therefore, it is natural that we should expect many similarities. If the Gospels record actual words spoken by Jesus, we should expect the eyewitnesses to report Jesus saying the same things.

Before you know it, you are going to say there is a National Anthem Q because so many people say the same thing.



It is obvious that no matter what evidence is supplied, you are stuck in what you believe.

I'll make you a deal... find me a parchment of the Gospel of Q.

Almost everything you stated in your bold letter edition about the gospels is subject to dispute. I can take it apart with little difficulty by referencing historical material which is undisputable. However, you are incapable of such analysis. The most obvious of your many errors is the statement that Matthew, mark and Luke were eyewitnesses. Ask any Bible scholar, they were not eyewitnesses.

You have no credibility. You make error after error. It is obvious you know almost nothing about Bible scholarship. And you keep repeating the same lies about Gospel Q. I never said those things. We will not discuss further.

 

[Kenny]

Almost everything you stated in your bold letter edition about the gospels is subject to dispute. I can take it apart with little difficulty by referencing historical material which is indisputable.
.

LOL No.. it is yours that is in dispute. I'm waiting for the evidence of Gospel Q

However, you are incapable of such analysis. The most obvious of your many errors is the statement that Matthew, mark and Luke were eyewitnesses. Ask any Bible scholar, they were not eyewitnesses.

ROFL.. I think it is YOU that needs to improve your analysis. Either you have selective biased reading or outright misquoting on purpose because right after what you highlighted, it also said,

"and/or close companions of eyewitnesses of Jesus."

You have no credibility. You make error after error. It is obvious you know almost nothing about Bible scholarship. And you keep repeating the same lies about Gospel Q. I never said those things. We will not discuss further.

Because you did not quote me right (whether on purpose or not, I don't know) it is YOU that has lost all credibility.

May I suggest you study the Bible a little better and read/quote with better expertise?

 

[Muffled]

I believe people who think God is disgusting fit the bill.

 

[Repox]

LOL No.. it is yours that is in dispute. I'm waiting for the evidence of Gospel Q



ROFL.. I think it is YOU that needs to improve your analysis. Either you have selective biased reading or outright misquoting on purpose because right after what you highlighted, it also said,

"and/or close companions of eyewitnesses of Jesus."


Because you did not quote me right (whether on purpose or not, I don't know) it is YOU that has lost all credibility.

May I suggest you study the Bible a little better and read/quote with better expertise?

Wow, what a lot of subterfuge in your posting. List one valid reference to support your claim for the NT gospel stories being historical, just one. Otherwise, stop wasting time.

 

[Kenny]

Wow, what a lot of subterfuge in your posting. List one valid reference to support your claim for the NT gospel stories are historical, just one. Otherwise, stop wasting time.

Great way to do a two step on the error of your analysis that put into GREAT peril your credibility as well as your inability to produce a Gospel Q manuscript.

One evidence: Only completely biased "i-don't-care-what-you-say" people that Jesus never existed. You did ask for just one.

 

[Repox]

Great way to do a two step on the error of your analysis that put into GREAT peril your credibility as well as your inability to produce a Gospel Q manuscript.

One evidence: Only completely biased "i-don't-care-what-you-say" people that Jesus never existed. You did ask for just one.

List one historical document to support your claim for the NT gospel stories being authentic, just one.

You don't read very well. I never asked for hearsay evidence. It appears you just make it up. Your would be advised to give it up. You are wasting a lot of time twisting my words.

 

[Kenny]

List one historical reference to support your claim for the NT gospel stories being historical, just one.

Ohhh.... now you want to move the goal post.

OK.

Dead Sea Scrolls Cave 7. Jose Callahan discovered a fragment of the Gospel of Mark and dated it to have been written in A.D. 50. He also discovered fragments of Acts and other epistles and dated them to have been written slightly after A.D. 50.

Which blows out of the water your previous statements of when they were written.

Did you want to move the goal post again?

 

[Daemon Sophic]

I want to do God's will and I pray that I do God's will and find it thoroughly disgusting that God would remain silent and refuse to let me know His will. More than anything I want to know what God wants me to do and He just remains silent and refuses to let me know. It is despicable that God would refuse to reveal his will to a sincere seeker!
.....
.......

Sorry, I just need to vent. God's chronic silence and hiding himself is totally sickening don't you think?

 

[Kenny]

List one historical document to support your claim for the NT gospel stories being authentic, just one.

You don't read very well. I never asked for hearsay evidence. It appears you just make it up. Your would be advised to give it up. You are wasting a lot of time twisting my words.

And then you even change what you asked for...

Please compare your new statement with what you posted before...

"List one historical reference to support your claim for the NT gospel stories being historical, just one."

Your credibility is almost down the drain with the ADDITIONAL goal post move.

 

[Kenny]

And then you have the veracity of what was written and archaeology. Here are just some...

The inscription identified one individual as Yohan Ben Ha'galgol. Studies of the bones performed by osteologists and doctors from the Hadassah Medical School determined the man was twenty-eight years old, stood five feet six inches, and had some slight facial defects due to a cleft right palate.

What intrigued archaeologists were the evidences that this man had been crucified in a manner resembling the crucifixion of Christ. A seven-inch nail had been driven through both feet, which were turned outward so the nail could be hammered inside the Achilles tendon.

Archaeologists also discovered that nails had been driven through his lower forearms. A victim of a crucifixion would have to raise and lower his body in order to breathe. To do this, he needed to push up on his pierced feet and pull up with his arms. Yohan's upper arms were smoothly worn, indicating this movement.

John records that in order to expedite the death of a prisoner, executioners broke the legs of the victim so that he could not lift himself up by pushing with his feet (19:31-33). Yohan's legs were found crushed by a blow, breaking them below the knee. The Dead Sea Scrolls tell that both Jews and Romans abhorred crucifixion due to its cruelty and humiliation. The scrolls also state it was a punishment reserved for slaves and any who challenged the ruling powers of Rome. This explains why Pilate chose crucifixion as the penalty for Jesus.

Relating to the crucifixion, in 1878 a stone slab was found in Nazareth with a decree from Emperor Claudius who reigned from 4154 A.D. It stated that graves must not be disturbed nor bodies to be removed. The punishment on other decrees is a fine but this one threatens death and comes very close to the time of the resurrection. This was probably due to Claudius investigating the riots of 49 A.D. He had certainly heard of the resurrection and did not want any similar incidents. This decree was probably made in connection with the Apostles' preaching of Jesus' resurrection and the Jewish argument that the body had been stolen.

Historian Thallus wrote in 52 A.D. Although none of his texts remain, his work is cited by Julius Africanus' work, Chronography. Quoting Thallus on the crucifixion of Christ, Africanus states, "On the whole world, there pressed a most fearful darkness, and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down."4 Thallus calls this darkness, "as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun."5

All the discoveries made are consistent with the details in the crucifixion account given by the writers of the Gospels. These facts lend indirect support for the biblical accounts of Jesus' crucifixion and that the tomb was empty.

Archaeology and the New Testament

 

[Kenny]

List one historical document to support your claim for the NT gospel stories being authentic, just one.
.

And THEN my dear goal post mover, we have the following:

James, Son of Joseph, Brother of Jesus: The James Ossuary

There is no reason to believe that this wasn't the tomb of James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.

Did you want more?

 

[Repox]

Ohhh.... now you want to move the goal post.

OK.

Dead Sea Scrolls Cave 7. Jose Callahan discovered a fragment of the Gospel of Mark and dated it to have been written in A.D. 50. He also discovered fragments of Acts and other epistles and dated them to have been written slightly after A.D. 50.

Which blows out of the water your previous statements of when they were written.

Did you want to move the goal post again?

Obviously, you can't do research. Copies of NT writings proves nothing except there are copies. There are hundreds of copies of written works out there. The question is where is the historical evidence for them representing situations or actual events. In two thousand years people could unearth copies of Superman comic books, but that doesn't mean superman really exists.

 

[Repox]

And then you have the veracity of what was written and archaeology. Here are just some...

The inscription identified one individual as Yohan Ben Ha'galgol. Studies of the bones performed by osteologists and doctors from the Hadassah Medical School determined the man was twenty-eight years old, stood five feet six inches, and had some slight facial defects due to a cleft right palate.

What intrigued archaeologists were the evidences that this man had been crucified in a manner resembling the crucifixion of Christ. A seven-inch nail had been driven through both feet, which were turned outward so the nail could be hammered inside the Achilles tendon.

Archaeologists also discovered that nails had been driven through his lower forearms. A victim of a crucifixion would have to raise and lower his body in order to breathe. To do this, he needed to push up on his pierced feet and pull up with his arms. Yohan's upper arms were smoothly worn, indicating this movement.

John records that in order to expedite the death of a prisoner, executioners broke the legs of the victim so that he could not lift himself up by pushing with his feet (19:31-33). Yohan's legs were found crushed by a blow, breaking them below the knee. The Dead Sea Scrolls tell that both Jews and Romans abhorred crucifixion due to its cruelty and humiliation. The scrolls also state it was a punishment reserved for slaves and any who challenged the ruling powers of Rome. This explains why Pilate chose crucifixion as the penalty for Jesus.

Relating to the crucifixion, in 1878 a stone slab was found in Nazareth with a decree from Emperor Claudius who reigned from 4154 A.D. It stated that graves must not be disturbed nor bodies to be removed. The punishment on other decrees is a fine but this one threatens death and comes very close to the time of the resurrection. This was probably due to Claudius investigating the riots of 49 A.D. He had certainly heard of the resurrection and did not want any similar incidents. This decree was probably made in connection with the Apostles' preaching of Jesus' resurrection and the Jewish argument that the body had been stolen.

Historian Thallus wrote in 52 A.D. Although none of his texts remain, his work is cited by Julius Africanus' work, Chronography. Quoting Thallus on the crucifixion of Christ, Africanus states, "On the whole world, there pressed a most fearful darkness, and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down."4 Thallus calls this darkness, "as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun."5

All the discoveries made are consistent with the details in the crucifixion account given by the writers of the Gospels. These facts lend indirect support for the biblical accounts of Jesus' crucifixion and that the tomb was empty.

Archaeology and the New Testament

Very interesting, I have also read some of those reports about gruesome methods of execution. So what? It proves nothing except we have evidence for it happening. If there was evidence for the crucifixion of Jesus, it would be significant. Keep searching, maybe you'll be the first to find it. I doubt, however, it exists. Those stories about Jesus being crucified were made up.

 

[Repox]

And THEN my dear goal post mover, we have the following:

James, Son of Joseph, Brother of Jesus: The James Ossuary

There is no reason to believe that this wasn't the tomb of James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.

Did you want more?

Interesting, but it proves not one single NT gospel story. Here is a quote from the article,

"Maybe the brother, Jesus, paid for the funeral of James.
Maybe the brother, Jesus, was an unusually famous person."

He could be, and could not be the brother of Jesus. Also, there were probably other men with the same name. I am certain Jesus existed, but I believe he was God in human form. Those romantic and exciting narratives about Jesus were fabricated. They were good writers of fiction.

You are digging up information about events occurring during the time, but so what? For writing gospel stories, the NT authors would have integrated history of the time for the stories.

I am certain you will find nothing because Jesus was God, not the son of God. Therefore, son of God stories are fictitious.

 

[Kenny]

Obviously, you can't do research. Copies of NT writings proves nothing except there are copies. There are hundreds of copies of written works out there. The question is where is the historical evidence for them representing situations or actual events. In two thousand years people could unearth copies of Superman comic books, but that doesn't mean superman really exists.

apples and oranges in your view.

Copies at 50AD PROVE various things.

1. How wrong you were as far as when they were written
2. Written, AT THE MOST 21 years after the death of Jesus which means the ORIGINAL copies are even earlier
3. Since they are written less than 21 years after the death of Jesus, it, along with the others, hold the standard that they are historical.
4. YOU haven't proven me wrong. Yet, I have proven you wrong again and again.

 

[Kenny]

Very interesting, I have also read some of those reports about gruesome methods of execution. So what? It proves nothing except we have evidence for it happening. If there was evidence for the crucifixion of Jesus, it would be significant. Keep searching, maybe you'll be the first to find it. I doubt, however, it exists. Those stories about Jesus being crucified were made up.

However, it DOES mean that the statements within the Gospels are consistent with its time frame and therefore not made up.

Archaeology takes ALL of these factor to bolster ones position. Mine gets bolstered more and more at every turn while you still are left with trying to find a manuscript, a portion or anything other than pure opinion about a Gospel Q