Christians Rejoice? Sodom & Gomorrah Ruins, including 'homosexual' males in coitus, Discovered

originally posted by: John333

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: John333
if you pay attention to the gospels. you may or may not have realised one thing. John is the only one who was actually there. and the gospels are of John's words. copies with probable translations. so you want to hear what matthew mark and luke said john said? or do you want to hear what john said himself?

If this is John's eyewitness account then why are there at least 3 authors who made multiple revisions with the final form of the Gospel being compiled at the tail end of the 1st century? There are very clear differences in the Greek indicating multiple authorship and the tail end of the 1st century attribution is a rather generous estimate based on grammar styles as the oldest actual manuscripts date from the very early 3rd century. There are definitely 'copies and probable translations' involved as you allude to, but within this one Gospel itself, including redactions. Who redacts portions of their eyewitness account? It is many things, but an eye witness account it is not. Bottom line is that there are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus anywhere in canonical text or contemporaneous Roman documents.

the other accounts were written as confirmation after Jesus death by the mathew mark and luke characters to emphasize that they had validated the information and the source from which they got it is true. the gospels are actually, exactly the same save for a few lines that are different between them. this no doubt would be because of translational, transpositional reasons. but it all begins with John who provides the ancient equivalent of a sworn affidavit before the court. and later other apostles of the christian church, verified and confirmed that by all regard. the information contained within was considered completely true by the people of the time and region. with king james being yet another confirmer of the content.

i know where we're going next just as i knew this question would come. and i had constructed the answer for you days ago, right after i wrote my last post. and without reading yours. we will deal with the context of contradictions among the gospels. i will also like to add that there is another version of the gospel in the Quran. each version, if you read them all together, sheds light on what message is really trying to be conveyed through their differences.

Oh look, another apology from someone with no critical thinking skills

originally posted by: mOjOm
Does it not concern anyone that after everything that's been done in the name of the bible it's still needing some validation????

Isn't it better to first verify the damn thing before you start using it to run countless lives and taking other lives as well???

You skipped a major step there!!!

Defining or validating scripture (where how and whence it came from) the original birth document or decree?

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: John333

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: John333
if you pay attention to the gospels. you may or may not have realised one thing. John is the only one who was actually there. and the gospels are of John's words. copies with probable translations. so you want to hear what matthew mark and luke said john said? or do you want to hear what john said himself?

If this is John's eyewitness account then why are there at least 3 authors who made multiple revisions with the final form of the Gospel being compiled at the tail end of the 1st century? There are very clear differences in the Greek indicating multiple authorship and the tail end of the 1st century attribution is a rather generous estimate based on grammar styles as the oldest actual manuscripts date from the very early 3rd century. There are definitely 'copies and probable translations' involved as you allude to, but within this one Gospel itself, including redactions. Who redacts portions of their eyewitness account? It is many things, but an eye witness account it is not. Bottom line is that there are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus anywhere in canonical text or contemporaneous Roman documents.

the other accounts were written as confirmation after Jesus death by the mathew mark and luke characters to emphasize that they had validated the information and the source from which they got it is true. the gospels are actually, exactly the same save for a few lines that are different between them. this no doubt would be because of translational, transpositional reasons. but it all begins with John who provides the ancient equivalent of a sworn affidavit before the court. and later other apostles of the christian church, verified and confirmed that by all regard. the information contained within was considered completely true by the people of the time and region. with king james being yet another confirmer of the content.

i know where we're going next just as i knew this question would come. and i had constructed the answer for you days ago, right after i wrote my last post. and without reading yours. we will deal with the context of contradictions among the gospels. i will also like to add that there is another version of the gospel in the Quran. each version, if you read them all together, sheds light on what message is really trying to be conveyed through their differences.

Oh look, another apology from someone with no critical thinking skills

its not critical thinking skills. of which i have a great surplus advantage over the average man. but the information i presented in this post... if you had even bothered to research your own questions. is how the information was validated for inclusion into the bible. they didnt just stick stories into the bible, they made sure that by all traceable accounts the information in them was historically accurate, using a system of trust and validations of swearings.

in response your oh look comment i have one of my own

oh look another denialist who cant accept the truth when it disagrees with their conclusion and makes them appear as though they have not done any research.. because they havent.

originally posted by: John333

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: John333

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: John333
if you pay attention to the gospels. you may or may not have realised one thing. John is the only one who was actually there. and the gospels are of John's words. copies with probable translations. so you want to hear what matthew mark and luke said john said? or do you want to hear what john said himself?

If this is John's eyewitness account then why are there at least 3 authors who made multiple revisions with the final form of the Gospel being compiled at the tail end of the 1st century? There are very clear differences in the Greek indicating multiple authorship and the tail end of the 1st century attribution is a rather generous estimate based on grammar styles as the oldest actual manuscripts date from the very early 3rd century. There are definitely 'copies and probable translations' involved as you allude to, but within this one Gospel itself, including redactions. Who redacts portions of their eyewitness account? It is many things, but an eye witness account it is not. Bottom line is that there are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus anywhere in canonical text or contemporaneous Roman documents.

the other accounts were written as confirmation after Jesus death by the mathew mark and luke characters to emphasize that they had validated the information and the source from which they got it is true. the gospels are actually, exactly the same save for a few lines that are different between them. this no doubt would be because of translational, transpositional reasons. but it all begins with John who provides the ancient equivalent of a sworn affidavit before the court. and later other apostles of the christian church, verified and confirmed that by all regard. the information contained within was considered completely true by the people of the time and region. with king james being yet another confirmer of the content.

i know where we're going next just as i knew this question would come. and i had constructed the answer for you days ago, right after i wrote my last post. and without reading yours. we will deal with the context of contradictions among the gospels. i will also like to add that there is another version of the gospel in the Quran. each version, if you read them all together, sheds light on what message is really trying to be conveyed through their differences.

Oh look, another apology from someone with no critical thinking skills

its not critical thinking skills. of which i have a great surplus advantage over the average man. but the information i presented in this post... if you had even bothered to research your own questions. is how the information was validated for inclusion into the bible. they didnt just stick stories into the bible, they made sure that by all traceable accounts the information in them was historically accurate, using a system of trust and validations of swearings.

in response your oh look comment i have one of my own

oh look another denialist who cant accept the truth when it disagrees with their conclusion and makes them appear as though they have not done any research.. because they havent.

Oh look, another apology from someone with no critical thinking skills

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: John333

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: John333

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: John333
if you pay attention to the gospels. you may or may not have realised one thing. John is the only one who was actually there. and the gospels are of John's words. copies with probable translations. so you want to hear what matthew mark and luke said john said? or do you want to hear what john said himself?

If this is John's eyewitness account then why are there at least 3 authors who made multiple revisions with the final form of the Gospel being compiled at the tail end of the 1st century? There are very clear differences in the Greek indicating multiple authorship and the tail end of the 1st century attribution is a rather generous estimate based on grammar styles as the oldest actual manuscripts date from the very early 3rd century. There are definitely 'copies and probable translations' involved as you allude to, but within this one Gospel itself, including redactions. Who redacts portions of their eyewitness account? It is many things, but an eye witness account it is not. Bottom line is that there are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus anywhere in canonical text or contemporaneous Roman documents.

the other accounts were written as confirmation after Jesus death by the mathew mark and luke characters to emphasize that they had validated the information and the source from which they got it is true. the gospels are actually, exactly the same save for a few lines that are different between them. this no doubt would be because of translational, transpositional reasons. but it all begins with John who provides the ancient equivalent of a sworn affidavit before the court. and later other apostles of the christian church, verified and confirmed that by all regard. the information contained within was considered completely true by the people of the time and region. with king james being yet another confirmer of the content.

i know where we're going next just as i knew this question would come. and i had constructed the answer for you days ago, right after i wrote my last post. and without reading yours. we will deal with the context of contradictions among the gospels. i will also like to add that there is another version of the gospel in the Quran. each version, if you read them all together, sheds light on what message is really trying to be conveyed through their differences.

Oh look, another apology from someone with no critical thinking skills

its not critical thinking skills. of which i have a great surplus advantage over the average man. but the information i presented in this post... if you had even bothered to research your own questions. is how the information was validated for inclusion into the bible. they didnt just stick stories into the bible, they made sure that by all traceable accounts the information in them was historically accurate, using a system of trust and validations of swearings.

in response your oh look comment i have one of my own

oh look another denialist who cant accept the truth when it disagrees with their conclusion and makes them appear as though they have not done any research.. because they havent.

Oh look, another apology from someone with no critical thinking skills

The problems began to happen with 'modern' theology 2000 years ago; before that, everyone was just fine in their understanding of themselves spiritually as a co- creator being retrofitting themselves as a God aspect in a place of universal existence.

You'll have to forgive me for laughing and shaking my head on a couple of points here:

1.) Just because two males were entombed in an embracing position does in no way signify they were lovers. It has been stated multiple times they could have been related and or buried together for a number of reasons previously stated.

2.) Two skeletons does not an entire city make.

3.) Saying the KJV of the Bible is the "definitive authority" is beyond ludicrous. Let's go to the source of his majesty's translated texts if we want to get nitty gritty....you know....the original texts before King James had them roughly translated?

Oh wait, Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek hard read. Me like English better.
King James good. Grunt. Smash. Fire. Kill.

Whatever.

Also, in regards to the thread title - as a Christian, and one who finds no pleasure in the suffering of others, nor any virtue in condemning someone for whom they happen to love...I can't really say I'm rejoicing over here. Sadly, I'm just shaking my head that so many have taken that book at literal face value in the manner they have in order to justify the worst behaviors imaginable on part of their "personal god".

This article is a circle jerk piece for the Hater Crowd.
No proof whatsoever these unearthed skeletons are part of the Sodom/Gomorrah Legends.

Still an interesting discussion.
I've said my peace and have nothing more to say on the matter.

Peace.
I'm out.

originally posted by: GENERAL EYES
No proof whatsoever these unearthed skeletons are part of the Sodom/Gomorrah Legends.

Claims, insinuations, etc like that coming from professional archaeologists "who ought to know better" are a very common tragedy in archaeology. The simple reason is that nothing attracts funding like finding something specific from the Bible. The only thing that comes close that I can think of is maybe 'finding Atlantis.'

So plenty of the time you get responsible science piggybacked with an irresponsible pop documentary and the brains behind it all just shrug and say it's how they had to fund their whole thing in the first place.

Why are Christians so obsessed with homosexuals, when Jesus wasn't?
Isn't he meant to be an example to y'all?

Ironic that anyone would hold up the KJV of the Bible as THE source, especially in this thread, given that King James was a homosexual.

Any way - of course this is sensationalistic nonsense, but it makes for better headlines and keeps the religious nutters happy for a little bit longer doesn't it.

originally posted by: VelvetSplash
Ironic that anyone would hold up the KJV of the Bible as THE source, especially in this thread, given that King James was a homosexual.

Any way - of course this is sensationalistic nonsense, but it makes for better headlines and keeps the religious nutters happy for a little bit longer doesn't it?

Then why break away from the Catholic Church to create a new bible if 'the nest' is in place (protecting homosexual priests/monks lifestyles/no admonition); why add the decree one can have multiple wives if he was a homosexual?

a reply to: Akragon

Actually, IIRC, Jeremiah or some such prophet said that the worst sin of S & G was . . .

. . .

PRIDE.

a reply to: BO XIAN

Nothing that the OT god was guilty of...

Right?

Old thread bro.... why are you resurrecting the dead?

originally posted by: Milah
Proof that the Bible is more than moral fable?

The bible reads more like a genocide instruction manual to me.

- Man o man.....talk about guilty until proven innocent !! Which in case you forget to factor in when too busy daydreaming/fantasizing about whether on not you could/would bar up enuf to drill your sister or daughter......old Ashley & Ashleigh uncovered there are in no fit state to plead their case !!

Hows about we just summize that this fire n brimstone event was a pre dawn thing .....it was dark....poor lad at back had a hell p*sshorn that time of morning....the chap in front's sandal snapped...he's stooped over to free his toe that's caught.....*****BAAANG DA F**K BAAAANG******** 1st incoming was damn close.....shook all around.....dude at back fell d*ck 1st into sandal bending front geezer....****BAAAANG!!!!!!!!****** ....next incoming is all it took & nuked them both in that compromising pose( only if ya want it to be a pose as that )...Fast forward a couple of K years &billy bible thumper comes along deeming them as bum buds/heathens yet is quite cool in knowledge his mobs temples/houses of worship/lunacy are more like pedo process line plants than houses of repute. WTF !!!!?????
Agh Religion........gotta admit its the most bat sh*t crazy thing all of humanity has been or will be bukkaked with.