What Was The Exact Wording On The Sign Above Jesus’ Head?
Alleged contradiction:
What was the exact wording on the cross?
(a) “This is Jesus the King of the Jews” (Matthew 27:37)
(b) “The King of the Jews” (Mark 15:26)
(c) “This is the King of the Jews” (Luke 23:38)
(d) “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews” (John 19:19)
This accusation assumes that each gospel writer was required to be exactly precise in his reporting.
A second key point to keep in mind, however, is that all four gospel writers report in agreement that the sign had the words, “The king of the Jews”, at a minimum.
A third key point that Bible detractors are generally unaware of is that Koine’ Greek did not have quotation marks. Quotes in Bible translations have been added by the translators. To save space and time, non-essential words can be omitted.
A fourth key point is to know is that the common spoken language around Jerusalem was Hebrew, which all four gospel writers knew fluently, They also were fluent in Koine’ Greek, the international language of communication, and, more importantly, the language they wrote the gospels in. Matthew, a tax collector for the Romans (Matthew 9:9-13; Mark 2:18-22; Luke 5:27-32), had to have known Latin, the official language of the Roman Empire.
Since “the inscription . . . was written in Hebrew, Latin and Greek” (John 19:20 NAB), gospel writers could have been quoting from different language versions. For example, Matthew could have quoted from the Latin. The medical doctor Luke was the most proficient in Greek, likely because Greece was the center of medical knowledge. So he could have quoted from the Greek. John perhaps quoted from the Hebrew, hence the fuller expression. Mark, whose gospel is the shortest, perhaps quoted only the bare minimum of the inscription.
The main point is that all four gospel writers report that the very public inscription stated the main charge against Jesus that he was being executed for.
“Pilate”, who had “the inscription written and put on the cross” (John 19:19 NAB), obviously did it as a way of getting back at “the chief priests of the Jews”, who had wrung the reluctant execution order out of him. This shows up in the way they asked him to charge the wording of the sign to, “he said, I am king of the Jews”, and Pilate’s very curt, terse reply, “What I have written, I have written” (John 19:21,22 NAB).
To the great chagrin of the chief priests, Pilate wanted everyone to know what Jesus was. Thus, God used the skeptic politician Pilate to spread the gospel.
After examining the evidence, we find there is no contradiction among the gospels about the wording on the sign above Jesus’ head.
19 thoughts on “What Was The Exact Wording On The Sign Above Jesus’ Head?”
This is such a trivial matter. The common meaning of the words on the sign is that Jesus was king of the Jews. This is false, regardless of the precise translation. Jesus never was the king of the Jews. Even he would deny the claim. Some people of the first century in Palestine and Jesus himself believed that he was a messenger of God. But that could not be true since God, if he did exist, would do his own communications and would not use messengers, offspring, or intermediaries to do it for him. The most effective, efficient, and ethical manner for God to communicate with humanity would be for him to regularly and directly speak to all living persons at the same time! Because this has NEVER happened, we therefore know that God does not exist! It is as simple as that.
“Pilate”, who had “the inscription written and put on the cross” (John 19:19 NAB), obviously did it as a way of getting back at “the chief priests of the Jews”, who had wrung the reluctant execution order out of him. This shows up in the way they asked him to charge the wording of the sign to, “he said, I am king of the Jews”, and Pilate’s very curt, terse reply, “What is have written, I have written” (John 19:21,22 NAB).
Jesus refused to be drafted into any political kingship. “When Jesus realized that they were abut to come and take him by force to make him king, he withdrew again to the mountain by himself” (John 6:15 NRSV).
He did, however, admit to another type of kinship. “My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my followers would be fighting to keep me from being haded over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is to from this source” (John 18:36 NRSV).
BA: “Pilate”, who had “the inscription written and put on the cross” (John 19:19 NAB), obviously did it as a way of getting back at “the chief priests of the Jews”, who had wrung the reluctant execution order out of him. This shows up in the way they asked him to charge the wording of the sign to, “he said, I am king of the Jews”, and Pilate’s very curt, terse reply, “What is have written, I have written” (John 19:21,22 NAB).
GW: If the story is true in this respect, anger towards the chief priests was probably one of Pilate’s motivations, but another was to justify his actions to the public. Through the sign Pilate was saying “This is why I am crucifying this man – it is claimed that he is king of the Jews, when Tiberius is the king of all people.”
GW: BTW, the NAB has been replaced in Bible Gateway by the NABRE. The correct quote here is: “21 So the chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate, “Do not write ‘The King of the Jews,’ but that he said, ‘I am the King of the Jews.’” 22 Pilate answered, “What I have written, I have written.”
BA: Jesus refused to be drafted into any political kingship. “When Jesus realized that they were abut to come and take him by force to make him king, he withdrew again to the mountain by himself” (John 6:15 NRSV).
GW: Jesus was “railroaded” to a wrongful conviction and execution by unethical and corrupted Jews and Romans. He was certainly guilty of causing a disruption in the temple and/or assaulting people in the temple, but I don’t think he ever claimed to be king of the Jews. The sign just told a lie.
BA: He did, however, admit to another type of kinship. “My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my followers would be fighting to keep me from being haded over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is to from this source” (John 18:36 NRSV).
GW: I think you meant “kingship” not “kinship.” But Jesus had delusions of grandeur. He believed not only that God did exist, but that he was a special messenger of God. We now know that he was mistaken. God does not exist. This has been proven. And even if God did exist, he would not use messengers of any kind. God would do his own communications. That would be the most effective, efficient, and ethical method, just what we would expect from a “perfect” intelligent agent and supreme authority.
GW: BTW, the NAB has been replaced in Bible Gateway by the NABRE. The correct quote here is: “21 So the chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate, “Do not write ‘The King of the Jews,’ but that he said, ‘I am the King of the Jews.’” 22 Pilate answered, “What I have written, I have written.”
BA—We’re well aware, and that is the version we quote from. We inadvertently typed “is” instead of “I” in John 19:21.
We just use the designation NAB (New American Bible), for brevity, as Bible Gateway does. We encourage you to check out Bible Gateway, since it has easy comparisons of numerous translations for each verse, as well as the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, and a number of Bible commentaries.
GW: He was certainly guilty of causing a disruption in the temple and/or assaulting people in the temple
BA—No, he wasn’t.
When he was captured by the mob, “Jesus said to the crowds, ‘Have you out with swords and clubs to arrest me as though I were a bandit? Day after day I sat in the temple teaching, and you did not arrest me.” (Matthew 26:55 NRSV).
GW—but I don’t think he ever claimed to be king of the Jews.
BA–Yes, he did.
Jesus referred to himself as king when he said, “the kingdom of God is among you” (Luke 17:21 NRSV).
Jesus referred to himself in the parable of the minas, when, “He said: ‘A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return” (Luke 19:12 NIV).
This is why Jesus accepted laudatory praise as the King of Israel on Palm Sunday.
“The next day the great crowd that had come to the festival heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem. So they took branches of palm trees and went out to meet him, shouting, ‘Hosanna! Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord–the King of Israel!’ Jesus found a young donkey and sat on it; as it is written: ‘ Do not be afraid, daughter of Zion, Look, your king is coming, sitting on a donkey’s colt'”—John 12:12-15 NRSV
GW: I think you meant “kingship” not “kinship.
BA—Yes, that was a typo.
GW—But Jesus had delusions of grandeur. He believed not only that God did exist, but that he was a special messenger of God.
BA—No, even though he was wrongly accused of being “out of his mind” and “raving mad” (Mark 3:21 NIV; John 10:20 NIV), “Christ himself, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Colossians 2:2,3 NIV), was sound in mind at all times.
GW: BTW, the NAB has been replaced in Bible Gateway by the NABRE. The correct quote here is: “21 So the chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate, “Do not write ‘The King of the Jews,’ but that he said, ‘I am the King of the Jews.’” 22 Pilate answered, “What I have written, I have written.”
BA—We’re well aware, and that is the version we quote from. We inadvertently typed “is” instead of “I” in John 19:21. We just use the designation NAB (New American Bible), for brevity, as Bible Gateway does. We encourage you to check out Bible Gateway, since it has easy comparisons of numerous translations for each verse, as well as the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, and a number of Bible commentaries.
GW: Then you are mislabeling. The NABRE is not the same as the NAB. The former is an update of the latter. You are intentionally being inaccurate and misleading, and that is unethical. I have been using Bible Gateway for years. “NABRE” is in the list of Bible Gateway, but NAB is not. Go see for yourself at: https://www.biblegateway.com/
GW: He was certainly guilty of causing a disruption in the temple and/or assaulting people in the temple
BA—No, he wasn’t.
When he was captured by the mob, “Jesus said to the crowds, ‘Have you out with swords and clubs to arrest me as though I were a bandit? Day after day I sat in the temple teaching, and you did not arrest me.” (Matthew 26:55 NRSV).
GW: To the contrary, Jesus was certainly guilty of causing a disruption in the temple, and here is the evidence:
“Then they came to Jerusalem. And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling and those who were buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves,” Mark 11:15, NRSVUE
“Then Jesus entered the temple[a] and drove out all who were selling and buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves.” Mat 21:12, NRSVUE
“Then he entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling things[a] there,” Luke 19:45, NRSVUE
“Making a whip of cords, he drove all of them out of the temple, with the sheep and the cattle. He also poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.” John 2:15, NRSVUE
GW: I will withdraw my claim that Jesus assaulted people in the temple, although there is some evidence for this in John 2:15,NRSVUE, as seen above. If this verse from John is true, I think it is likely that Jesus hit at least one person with his whip of cords. However, since assault is only implied in John and not the other three Gospels, I withdraw the claim. In general, John is not trustworthy, as I have said many times.
GW: It is highly likely that Jesus’ disruption of the temple was witnessed by persons who reported the illegal behavior to the Roman and Jewish officials. He should have been arrested and jailed for this behavior, but should not have been crucified.
GW—but I don’t think he ever claimed to be king of the Jews.
BA–Yes, he did. Jesus referred to himself as king when he said, “the kingdom of God is among you” (Luke 17:21 NRSV).
GW: That is still not “king of the Jews.”
BA: Jesus referred to himself in the parable of the minas, when, “He said: ‘A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return” (Luke 19:12 NIV).
GW: Even here Jesus does not declare himself as “king of the Jews.”
BA: This is why Jesus accepted laudatory praise as the King of Israel on Palm Sunday. “The next day the great crowd that had come to the festival heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem. So they took branches of palm trees and went out to meet him, shouting, ‘Hosanna! Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord–the King of Israel!’ Jesus found a young donkey and sat on it; as it is written: ‘ Do not be afraid, daughter of Zion, Look, your king is coming, sitting on a donkey’s colt’”—John 12:12-15 NRSV
GW: Yes, some Jews thought Jesus was king of the Jews, but this does not mean that Jesus thought he was or said he was. In this last verse, “your king” might refer to “king of all humans,” not merely king of the Jews. And still, the verse comes from John, the most unreliable of the four Gospels. You have not presented verses from the other three which support your claim.
GW: I think you meant “kingship” not “kinship.
BA—Yes, that was a typo.
GW: You are welcome.
GW—But Jesus had delusions of grandeur. He believed not only that God did exist, but that he was a special messenger of God.
BA—No, even though he was wrongly accused of being “out of his mind” and “raving mad” (Mark 3:21 NIV; John 10:20 NIV), “Christ himself, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Colossians 2:2,3 NIV), was sound in mind at all times.
GW: You are making a straw man argument here. I never said that Jesus was “out of his mind” or “raving mad,” as some people might have said at the time. He may have been that way, but I am not claiming it. But I am claiming that he had delusions of grandeur. He believed that he was a special messenger of and had a special relationship with God, in whom he believed. These are delusions, obviously. Do you know what a delusion is? It is a belief, which is false, strongly held, and highly resistant to contrary evidence or proof. All three of these elements are present in the beliefs of Jesus which we are discussing right now. “God exists” and “God would use messengers” are just false. We now know this, but Jesus may not have known it when he was living and preaching. That he was delusional is beyond all reasonable doubt.
GW: Then you are mislabeling. The NABRE is not the same as the NAB. The former is an update of the latter. You are intentionally being inaccurate and misleading, and that is unethical. I have been using Bible Gateway for years. “NABRE” is in the list of Bible Gateway, but NAB is not. Go see for yourself at: https://www.biblegateway.com/
BA—We’re been familiar with Bible Gateway for many years, but have been using Bible Hub for its easy comparison of many translations, including the NAB. Following is a tiny sample, using Matthew 27:42:
New American Bible
“He saved others; he cannot save himself. So he is the king of Israel! Let him come down from the cross now, and we will believe in him.
New Revised Standard Version
“He saved others; he cannot save himself. He is the King of Israel; let him come down from the cross now, and we will believe in him.
GW: To the contrary, Jesus was certainly guilty of causing a disruption in the temple, and here is the evidence:
BA—The merchants and currency changers were operating illegally in the temple, “making it a den of robbers” (Matthew 27:13 NIV). Jesus, as the owner’s Son, had every right to act as he did.
GW: Yes, some Jews thought Jesus was king of the Jews, but this does not mean that Jesus thought he was or said he was. In this last verse, “your king” might refer to “king of all humans,” not merely king of the Jews. And still, the verse comes from John, the most unreliable of the four Gospels. You have not presented verses from the other three which support your claim.
BA—“Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, ‘Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews?'”—Matthew 2:1,2 NIV
Where did they get this idea?
‘The governor asked him, ‘Are you the king of the Jews?’ ‘You have said so,’ Jesus replied” (Matthew 27:11 NIV; Mark 15:2; Luke 23:3). Where did Pilate learn this? This is not a denial, but has been understood as been essentially affirmative.
“Then Nathaniel declared, ‘Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the king of Israel”—John 1:49 NIV
Where did he learn this?
GW: Then you are mislabeling. The NABRE is not the same as the NAB. The former is an update of the latter. You are intentionally being inaccurate and misleading, and that is unethical. I have been using Bible Gateway for years. “NABRE” is in the list of Bible Gateway, but NAB is not. Go see for yourself at: https://www.biblegateway.com/
BA—We’re been familiar with Bible Gateway for many years, but have been using Bible Hub for its easy comparison of many translations, including the NAB.
GW: So, you misled us in a different way. You said you were using Bible Gateway in the present dispute, when you were really using Bible Hub. That is unethical. Also, Bible Gateway allows easy comparison too.
GW: To the contrary, Jesus was certainly guilty of causing a disruption in the temple, and here is the evidence:
BA—The merchants and currency changers were operating illegally in the temple, “making it a den of robbers” (Matthew 27:13 NIV). Jesus, as the owner’s Son, had every right to act as he did.
GW: False. They were operating legally in the temple, even though Jesus (and apparently you) thought they were operating immorally. Prove that changing one currency for another for a fee, even in a temple, is immoral.
GW: Yes, some Jews thought Jesus was king of the Jews, but this does not mean that Jesus thought he was or said he was. In this last verse, “your king” might refer to “king of all humans,” not merely king of the Jews. And still, the verse comes from John, the most unreliable of the four Gospels. You have not presented verses from the other three which support your claim.
BA—“Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, ‘Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews?’”—Matthew 2:1,2 NIV Where did they get this idea?
GW: It is irrelevant where they got the idea. It still does not support your original claim which is that Jesus thought and proclaimed that he was king of the Jews.
BA: ‘The governor asked him, ‘Are you the king of the Jews?’ ‘You have said so,’ Jesus replied” (Matthew 27:11 NIV; Mark 15:2; Luke 23:3). Where did Pilate learn this? This is not a denial, but has been understood as been essentially affirmative.
GW: You and some other Christians have INTERPRETED it to be affirmative, but it is noncommital. So, the verse still does not support your claim.
BA: “Then Nathaniel declared, ‘Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the king of Israel”—John 1:49 NIV Where did he learn this?
GW: Again, it is irrelevant where they learned this. The verse still does not support your original claim. And Jesus was not the Son of God. If God did exist, he would not have offspring and he would not employ messengers or intermediaries. If you think he would, then prove your case.
GW: So, you misled us in a different way. You said you were using Bible Gateway in the present dispute, when you were really using Bible Hub.
BA—No sir, not at all. Here is our reference to Bible Gateway, quoted:
“BA—We’re been familiar with Bible Gateway for many years, but have been using Bible Hub for its easy comparison of many translations, including the NAB.
Being “familiar with” a website does not equate using it.”
BA—The merchants and currency changers were operating illegally in the temple, “making it a den of robbers” (Matthew 27:13 NIV). Jesus, as the owner’s Son, had every right to act as he did.
GW: False. They were operating legally in the temple, even though Jesus (and apparently you) thought they were operating immorally. Prove that changing one currency for another for a fee, even in a temple, is immoral.
BA–Quoting the principle at Jeremiah 7:11, Jesus said, “It is written,’ he said, ‘My house will be called a house of prayer,’ but you are making it ‘a den of robbers'” (Matthew 21:13 NIV).
GW: Again, it is irrelevant where they learned this. The verse still does not support your original claim. And Jesus was not the Son of God. If God did exist, he would not have offspring and he would not employ messengers or intermediaries. If you think he would, then prove your case.
BA—“In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son”—Hebrews 1:1,2 NIV
GW: So, you misled us in a different way. You said you were using Bible Gateway in the present dispute, when you were really using Bible Hub.
BA—No sir, not at all. Here is our reference to Bible Gateway, quoted:
“BA—We’re [We’ve?] been familiar with Bible Gateway for many years, but have been using Bible Hub for its easy comparison of many translations, including the NAB. Being “familiar with” a website does not equate using it.”
GW: That is still misleading and unethical. You implied you were using Bible Gateway in our current dispute when you were actually using Bible Hub.
BA—The merchants and currency changers were operating illegally in the temple, “making it a den of robbers” (Matthew 27:13 NIV). Jesus, as the owner’s Son, had every right to act as he did.
GW: False. They were operating legally in the temple, even though Jesus (and apparently you) thought they were operating immorally. Prove that changing one currency for another for a fee, even in a temple, is immoral.
BA–Quoting the principle at Jeremiah 7:11, Jesus said, “It is written,’ he said, ‘My house will be called a house of prayer,’ but you are making it ‘a den of robbers’” (Matthew 21:13 NIV).
GW: Jesus’s disruptive behavior in the temple was still illegal, regardless if he or you think his behavior was moral. He should have been immediately arrested, tried, and put in jail for at least 30 days. It is likely he still would have been crucified later because he was delusional and was pursing “suicide by cop.” If he wanted to continue living and preaching, he would have stayed away from Jerusalem, especially during the Jewish holidays. Of course, he knew this.
GW: Again, it is irrelevant where they learned this. The verse still does not support your original claim. And Jesus was not the Son of God. If God did exist, he would not have offspring and he would not employ messengers or intermediaries. If you think he would, then prove your case.
BA—“In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son”—Hebrews 1:1,2 NIV
GW: False. There is no good evidence that God has ever spoken to anyone! The belief of this author is just mistaken. In addition, we now know that God doesn’t even exist. If he did exist, he would not use messengers. He would do his own communications. If you think otherwise, prove your case.
“BA—We’re [We’ve?] been familiar with Bible Gateway for many years, but have been using Bible Hub for its easy comparison of many translations, including the NAB. Being “familiar with” a website does not equate using it.”
GW: That is still misleading and unethical. You implied you were using Bible Gateway in our current dispute when you were actually using Bible Hub.
BA—Absolutely not! We never implied we were using Bible Gateway. In fact, most of our quotes are manually typed in directly from the Bible translations themselves. We only referenced Bible Gateway to show you that “New American Bible” is an accurate way to describe “New American Bible Revised Edition”.
Your communication about your use of these two websites was misleading. Just re-read what you wrote and you will see for yourself. Please do not do that in the future. Thank you.
And your quotes failed to support or prove your claim anyway.
We have re-read, and you continue to grossly misrepresent the facts. Please stop!
We’ve been very liberal in allowing your repeated comments here that we vehemently disagree with, such as, “God does not exist. This has been proven”.
However, your slanderous misrepresentations must stop, or you will no longer be welcome at this website.
Regarding the recent incident of your making misleading comments about the two websites, I agree to disagree on that point. I have nothing more to say about it.
Regarding the issue of the existence of God, my assertions “God does not exist. This has been proven” are ALWAYS RELEVANT in every discussion we have here since your premises are these: 1) God exists. 2) God has communicated with human beings. and 3) The Bible is the authentic Word of God. Would you censor disagreements with your three premises? You would not, if you were devoted to free inquiry, open debate, and the truth. Are you devoted to those values? You should be welcoming disagreement, not discouraging it.
GW—Regarding the recent incident of your making misleading comments about the two websites, I agree to disagree on that point. I have nothing more to say about it.
BA—The issue is your slanderous accusation, which will not be tolerated. Cease and desist now, or you’ll be gone from this website.
GW—Regarding the issue of the existence of God, my assertions “God does not exist. This has been proven” are ALWAYS RELEVANT in every discussion we have here since your premises are these: 1) God exists. 2) God has communicated with human beings. and 3) The Bible is the authentic Word of God. Would you censor disagreements with your three premises? You would not, if you were devoted to free inquiry, open debate, and the truth. Are you devoted to those values? You should be welcoming disagreement, not discouraging it.
BA—By our actions, we’ve shown that we’re very tolerant of differing views. If a mistake is pointed out, we accept the correction.
However, all comments must be respectful.
We, at this website, are always honest.
Ad hominem slurs, such as the slander you have been guilty of about Bible Hub and Bible Gateway, will not be tolerated.
If you continue to mention such trash as this, you’re gone from this website.
GW—Regarding the issue of the existence of God, my assertions “God does not exist. This has been proven” are ALWAYS RELEVANT in every discussion we have here since your premises are these: 1) God exists. 2) God has communicated with human beings. and 3) The Bible is the authentic Word of God. Would you censor disagreements with your three premises? You would not, if you were devoted to free inquiry, open debate, and the truth. Are you devoted to those values? You should be welcoming disagreement, not discouraging it.
BA—By our actions, we’ve shown that we’re very tolerant of differing views.
GW: Yes, you have been generally tolerant of differing views, and I expect and hope that you will continue to be tolerant and even encouraging of them.
BA: If a mistake is pointed out, we accept the correction.
GW: I think you do accept it about 80% of the time.
BA: However, all comments must be respectful.
GW: All of my comments have been respectful for all the years I have participated. Disagreeing is not the same as being disrespectful.
GW: Get back on track. Your three premises are these, are they not? 1) God exists. 2) God has communicated with human beings. and 3) The Bible is the authentic Word of God. The latter two depend on the first, do they not? But, the first is false. I have proven that God does not exist, and I have even provided at least two or three proofs of this to you, and you have found no errors in any of them. Based on feedback (possibly some from you), I have made slight revisions to Argument #4, so I am going to present it to you now. Please look for an error and if you think you have found one, present it here for consideration and debate.
Argument 4.
Argument Against the Existence of God Based on Absence of Universal Communication: By Gary Whittenberger, 3-18-2024, 6-19-2024, 7-11-2024, 7-20-2024, 8-8-2024, 8-17-2024, 9-15-2024
1. Definition: God is 1) the hypothetical, unique, exclusive, supernatural, self-sufficient, free, spiritual, normally invisible person, conscious intelligent agent, or sentient entity (primary traits). He/she* is maximally enduring, present, intelligent, rational, knowing, creative, powerful, and resilient (primary traits). He/she wants, but does not need, loving relationships with other persons (primary trait). He/she is also maximally loving, compassionate, cooperative, and moral with respect to other persons (secondary traits). He/she is designer and creator of the cosmos, occasional interventionist in the world, and the afterlife manager who decides the favorable or unfavorable disposition of human souls after they die (secondary traits). or 2) the Greatest Imaginable Possible Person (the “GIPPer”) or ideal person who, if he/she existed, would possess all desirable traits to the highest degrees and no undesirable traits, and who would be worthy of our greatest respect, admiration, and worship. (*Since God would not have a sex or gender, I shall use both male and female pronouns to refer to God.) (29A)
2. If God did exist, then he/she would communicate with all other persons in the BEST POSSIBLE manner.
3. This BEST POSSIBLE manner would be for God to regularly meet and communicate with all presently existing persons at the same time.**
A. Nature of the Meetings
1) God would give advance notice of the locations, days, and times of his upcoming meetings. All persons would have reserved seats at the venues.
2) These meetings would be objective, not merely subjective.
3)** On Earth the meeting would probably start at the same time, e.g. 9 AM, in each time zone during a single 24-hour period.
4) God would “clone” himself/herself to be in all convenient venues at the same time where other persons exist.
5) God would appear in the same general form as the persons to whom he/she would be communicating and in a specific form so as to minimize fear. For example, to human persons he/she would probably look like a kind, gentle, motherly woman 34-41 years old.
6) God would speak, audibly and objectively, to everyone in their own language at the same time.
7) God would identify himself/herself as “God”.
8) By simple pointing and without the use of any devices, God would perform at least three amazing acts which would violate natural laws, as currently known by us, upon random request from any person in the audience. These would be miracles. Some examples are:
a. Create an entire human person from a handful of dirt.
b. Resurrect a human person who had been dead for at least a year from bones or ashes of that person.
c. Voluntarily withstand destruction from firearms, explosives, heat, cold, or radiation.
d. Eliminate the Sun, Moon, or stars for one minute and then restore them.
e. Create something out of nothing.
f. Halt entropy for one minute and then restore it to its current increasing rate.
9) God would present his/her reasons for allowing or causing the Holocaust.
10) God would specify the one and only moral code – the Correct Universal Ethics for Persons (CUE-P).
11) God would specify the consequences of his/her enforcement of CUE-P.
12) God would show how he/she derived CUE-P from the principles of reason, compassion, and cooperation.
13) God would address a few questions, challenges, and requests from the audience.
14) God would provide printed or electronic copies of his/her lecture and demonstrations to all persons who wanted them.
15) God would have these meetings at regular intervals appropriate to the type of persons of his/her audience. For example, he/she would probably meet with human persons every seven years since age seven is considered the “age of reason” for human persons.
B. Reasons or Motives for the Meetings
1) God would be motivated to present the most important sets of facts to all persons, including his/her existence, his nature, CUE-P, and consequences, so that this knowledge would benefit all persons.
2) God would be motivated to present moral rules for proper behavior to all persons so that they would have a clear understanding of how to behave and not behave.
3) God would be motivated to forewarn all persons of the rewards and punishments for compliance and noncompliance with moral rules, respectively.
4) God would be motivated to “levelize opportunity” so that all persons would have the same basic knowledge of the universe and life with which to work. God would not show favoritism to some people over others in providing this basic knowledge.
5) God would be motivated to minimize punishment which could occur for noncompliance with CUE-P.
6) Almost all persons would attend the meetings of their own “free will” (if such a thing even exists). However, for those who did not make the choice, God would probably temporarily suspend their free will and require them to attend. He would judge that having the basic knowledge, as outlined above, would be more important than a free choice to attend or not attend the meetings. God would be providing good information to help all persons make better decisions in the exercise of their free will after the meetings.
7) God would be motivated to use and would use the BEST POSSIBLE mode of communication in order to minimize eight possible adverse effects — misunderstanding, confusion, distortion, inaccuracy, doubt, disbelief, disagreement, and conflict about himself and the moral code. He/she would want there to be just ONE authority and authoritative text – himself/herself and his/her word.
8) God would not use messengers, emissaries, delegates, assistants, offspring, prophets, angels, or any kind of intermediaries to do his/her communication or other work for him/her. He/she would do it all himself/herself.
a) A single consistent authenticated source is more credible to people than multiple inconsistent unauthenticated sources. God would know this and he/she would want high credibility for his/her communications with other persons.
b) Only deities who are weak, lazy, shy, or deceptive would use intermediaries, and God would have none of those traits.
9) God would be the perfect teacher, judge, and enforcer.
10) God would know all facts about communication, including that it is better to communicate with an entire group rather than with subgroups in terms of objectivity, comprehension, and efficiency.
11) If God did exist, then for any goal at all which he would have, he would accomplish it in the most efficient, moral, and loving manner, i.e. the best possible manner.
4. This kind of meeting of God with all living persons at the same time has never occurred!
5. Therefore, God does not exist.
BA: However, all comments must be respectful.
GW: All of my comments have been respectful for all the years I have participated. Disagreeing is not the same as being disrespectful.
BA—No, they haven’t, and if you get out of line again, you won’t be welcome here.
GW—I have proven that God does not exist, and I have even provided at least two or three proofs of this to you, and you have found no errors in any of them.
BA—False on all three accounts.
GW—8) God would not use messengers, emissaries, delegates, assistants, offspring, prophets, angels, or any kind of intermediaries to do his/her communication or other work for him/her. He/she would do it all himself/herself.
BA—False assumption.
“He gives power to the faint, abundant strength to the weak”—Isaiah 40:29 NAB
God can do whatever he wants to do, and no one can stop him.
“Who has directed the spirit of Yahweh, what counsellor could have instructed him? . . . See, the nations are like a drop in a bucket, they count as a grain of dust on the scales”—Isaiah 40:13,15 NJB
BA: However, all comments must be respectful.
GW: All of my comments have been respectful for all the years I have participated. Disagreeing is not the same as being disrespectful.
BA—No, they haven’t, and if you get out of line again, you won’t be welcome here.
GW: Yes, they have. I have always been “in line” and intend to continue that way.
GW—I have proven that God does not exist, and I have even provided at least two or three proofs of this to you, and you have found no errors in any of them.
BA—False on all three accounts.
GW: Prove that all three accounts are false. Or just present an error in any of the accounts. You won’t because you can’t.
GW—8) God would not use messengers, emissaries, delegates, assistants, offspring, prophets, angels, or any kind of intermediaries to do his/her communication or other work for him/her. He/she would do it all himself/herself.
BA—False assumption.
GW: True conclusion. If you disagree, prove your position or find an error in mine.
BA: “He gives power to the faint, abundant strength to the weak”—Isaiah 40:29 NAB
GW: God might do that if he existed, but it would not be by using messengers. If you think otherwise, present your case.
BA: God can do whatever he wants to do, and no one can stop him.
GW: If God did exist, that claim would be true. However, he would want to communicate for himself, not using messengers. If you disagree, present your case for debate.
BA: “Who has directed the spirit of Yahweh, what counsellor could have instructed him? . . . See, the nations are like a drop in a bucket, they count as a grain of dust on the scales”—Isaiah 40:13,15 NJB
GW: If God did exist, he would make his own decisions without being directed by you, me, or anyone else. However, one decision he would make would be to do his own communications without the use of messengers. If you think otherwise, present your case here for debate. Don’t pontificate; discuss.
GW: If God did exist, he would make his own decisions without being directed by you, me, or anyone else. However, one decision he would make would be to do his own communications without the use of messengers. If you think otherwise, present your case here for debate.
BA—We’ve already done that.
“Who has directed the spirit of Yahweh, what counsellor could have instructed him? . . . See, the nations are like a drop in a bucket, they count as a grain of dust on the scales”—Isaiah 40:13,15 NJB
He makes all his own decisions.
“God is exalted in his power . . . who has prescribed his ways for him, or said to him, ‘You have done wrong?'” (Job 36:22,23 NIV).
No one can tell him what to do, or make him do anything, since he is “Almighty” (Revelation 4:8).
God CAN do anything he wants to. He also has the free will not to do anything he doesn’t want to do. He has perfect control of himself.
You’re misconstruing “ability” with “doing”.
GW: If God did exist, he would make his own decisions without being directed by you, me, or anyone else. However, one decision he would make would be to do his own communications without the use of messengers. If you think otherwise, present your case here for debate.
BA—We’ve already done that.
GW: No, you haven’t. You just quoted Bible authors who agree with your position. You didn’t explain, justify, or defend your position. Why do you believe that God would use messengers, if he did exist?
BA: “Who has directed the spirit of Yahweh, what counsellor could have instructed him? . . . See, the nations are like a drop in a bucket, they count as a grain of dust on the scales”—Isaiah 40:13,15 NJB
GW: This is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Nobody is directing God to do anything! I am asking you to justly your belief that God would use messengers, if he did exist. Why do you think he would do that?
GW: I will give you a few reasons why God would not use messengers. Moses (if real), Jesus, Paul, Muhammad, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Joseph Smith, Billy Graham, and Pope Francis. What did all these men have in common? They all claimed to be messengers of God. But they were inconsistent or contradictory in their claims about God. The people, who have learned about them, are confused and don’t know what to believe. The people sometimes fight over what God wants. What people believe about God depends on where they live, their parents, their education, and the religious spokesperson they adopt. If God did exist, he would know this would happen, and he would prevent it by delivering his own messages in person. He would never employ messengers or intermediaries.
BA: He makes all his own decisions.
GW: Well, God would, if he existed. Duh. You are evading the issue. God would make the decision to not use messengers. I’ve rationally defended my position. Now, you defend your contrary position. Please stop evading the issue.
BA: “God is exalted in his power . . . who has prescribed his ways for him, or said to him, ‘You have done wrong?’” (Job 36:22,23 NIV).
GW: Because he would be all-powerful and perfectly moral, God would communicate with human beings in the most effective, efficient, and ethical manner, and therefore he would not use messengers. If you think otherwise, present your defense.
BA: No one can tell him what to do, or make him do anything, since he is “Almighty” (Revelation 4:8).
GW: Because he would be Almighty, he would do his own work, including his own communications.
BA: God CAN do anything he wants to.
GW: Of course he could, if he existed. Duh. And he WOULD want to do his own communications. Why would you think otherwise?
GW: You are very confused about the meanings of these three words: COULD, WOULD, SHOULD.
BA: He also has the free will not to do anything he doesn’t want to do. He has perfect control of himself.
GW: Of course he would have that free will, if he did exist, and he would freely choose to do his own communication.
BA: You’re misconstruing “ability” with “doing”.
GW: No, I’m not. God would have BOTH the ABILITY and the MOTIVATION to do all his own communications. If you think otherwise, prove your case. You won’t because you can’t.