(August 3, 2017 at 6:52 am)pocaracas Wrote: Could Q, L and/or M have been "oral tales"?

Scholars (textual critics) think it was a document that was in circulation. Luke mentioned other sources in his intro.

(August 3, 2017 at 1:49 pm)SteveII Wrote: 4. If there is evidence, it follows that one is not irrational to believe it.

Did Joe the Baker walk on water simply because you bought a loaf of bread from him?

Useless apologetic assholes think it was real.

Others, not so much.

https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/tj/q_linnemann.pdf

Quote:Imagine flying to a non-existent island on an airplane that has not yet been invented.
Even if this impossible trip were to take place during the thirteenth month of the year, it
would not be as fantastic as the tale, recently christened as scientific certainty by some NT
scholars, concerning the so-called lost gospel Q and the earliest Church.

No, Q is merely the invention of certain 19th century scholars who realized that the gospel tale they were told were total bullshit and needed some help.  So they invented some.  In much the same way as early xtian liars invented your fucking godboy.

Give it up, lad.

I wonder if Steve has ever considered the compelling evidence that Jesus doesn't stand up to the Jewish Messiah qualifications.

But what would they know?

They think Christians have got it wrong,

Muslims think Christians have got it wrong.

I think they have have got it wrong.

God knows the truth, so he can easily make it plain so we know too.

Or not..... if there was a god he doesn't seem to give a flying fuck about anything.

My conclusion is that there is no god.

(August 3, 2017 at 3:06 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Or not..... if there was a god he doesn't seem to give a flying fuck about anything.

My conclusion is that there is no god.

Well that is more parsimonious I grant you

Amen.

(August 3, 2017 at 1:54 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(August 2, 2017 at 10:17 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: Now, having said all that, I'm sure you'll ignore it all because you had to get all offended for your gawd, because I called it gawd, or jeebus, or some such (no, I don't have to respect your gawd just because you think it's worthy). If you're so thin skinned that you have to get upset that someone called your all-powerful, creator of the universe, sky-daddy a name, maybe an atheist forum isn't the best place for you.

I don't respond because you are disrespectful to God, I don't respond because you are disrespectful to me (and intentionally so). I'm not upset--just recognize what a waste of time answering you would be. It's a shame, perhaps you have some good points.

Or maybe you don't respond because you don't want to consider the ramifications of my points.

But shitting all over him and his silly god is still great fun.