Can't prove the supernatural God

[Pat Mustard]

You happen to be wrong. The earliest version of the accepted bible wasn't created until the 4th century CE, and has gone through many changes up until at least the 20th century CE. It has been radically altered, for example the oldest version of the gospel the Markan document originally had no resurrection, the long ending with a resurrection only appearing in the 200s CE, when a preponderance of theologists were coming down as proto-orthodox, and therefore had a vested interest in showing that Yeshua was god and had resurrected bodily.

Read this if you want to know just how far off you are. Also, have you ever looked at the approximate dates each book of the NT was written?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmen...0.93325.29

What do you think the abrupt ending of Mark proves? Certainly nothing that would support your argument. In the last few versus of the "uncontested" portion, it is clear that Jesus was expecting to see them again in Galilee. 

Mark 16:6 “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’”

Some scholars believe the author of Mark included an OLDER passage on the death and resurrection into his original book that would have been familiar to the audience and therefore sometimes separated early on from the rest of the book.

It shows that the bible has been significantly altered post writing, and considering that original Mark is present in the Codex Vaticanus we know that this alteration didn't become set theology until hundreds of years after christ's alleged life and death. While I'm not going to speculate on early christian theologies (hard to speculate on something with only fragmented scraps of evidence), I will say that that major change is strong evidence that current chritianity was massively altered at some stage.

Some "scholars" also believe that global warming isn't anthropogenic or that people used ride on dinosaurs. Just because you can get somebody in a cap and gown to agree with you doesn't make your assertions correct. The evidence we have shows that until at least the 200s CE Mark stopped at 16:8, if you want to claim different, provide evidence to back your claim. Anyways, appealing to biblical "scholarship" doesn't cut it for me, because like economics to much of that discipline is spent trying to fit facts to preconceived assumptions, either bt omission of inconvenient realities, or the invention of documents, or the acceptance of obvious falsehoods.