(May 18, 2016 at 10:30 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Feel free to present proof.
Is this your new gig, now? Just saying "prove it" every time we mention something not in the evangelical version of events?
Look at *any* scholarly articles on the differences between the Synoptic gospels and the later-written Gospel of John.
Hell, you don't even need to do that. Just make a chart (some Bibles already have them, conveniently laid out for you) listing the miracles attested to be performed by Jesus, and SEE FOR YOURSELF that they increase with time, with the earliest-written gospel (Mark) containing few, while the last-written gospel (John) containing more than the others combined, and of much higher magnitude.
The VERY earliest document, Q, which is hypothetical but generally accepted by religious scholars as being a thing that existed, based on comparisons between the two earliest gospels, shows that there were no claims of magic that were identically-worded sharing between the two, meaning that Q was basically a collections of sayings (like the Sermon on the Mount) by Yeshua the rabbi. Others have noted that the earliest writings (Paul and James) we have make no mention of him being God Incarnate, and the latter also refers to the sayings that are common with the hypothetical Q. In other words, it's apparent that people added to the legend, as the years went by.
It is obvious to anyone who doesn't have their head up their "I'd rather believe this great story so I'm going to stop thinking about it unless it's already in the story" asses.
FFS, man... you can lead a horse to water...
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
