crazy christians:Interracial Couples Banned From Kentucky Church

[stu]

Quote from jem:

One problem with your fictional b.s. --- its countered by facts.

Your own expert - the only one you could even conjure up says this..

"Central to Crossan's methodology is the dating of texts. This is laid out more or less fully in The Historical Jesus in one of the appendices. He dates part of the Coptic Gospel of Thomas to the 50s CE, as well as the first layer of the hypothetical Q Document (in this he is heavily dependent on the work of John Kloppenborg). He also assigns a portion of the Gospel of Peter, which he calls the "Cross Gospel," to a date preceding the synoptic gospels, the reasoning of which is laid out more fully in The Cross that Spoke: The Origin of the Passion Narratives. He believes the "Cross Gospel" was the forerunner to the passion narratives in the canonical gospels. He does not date the synoptics until the mid to late 70s CE, starting with the Gospel of Mark and ending with Luke in the 90s"


So not only do we have an virtually undisputed quote in Josephus Antiquities... your own "expert" is dating texts which speak of Jesus to well inside the eyewitness period. In the 50s CE.

And recently other fragments of the new testament... have been dated by some experts to well within the eyewitness period as well.

All this is quite remarkable... how many 2000 year old writings of a controversial figure would you expect to survive.

"Your own expert - the only one you could even conjure up says this.."

A critique of Crossan written in the third person, is not what Crossan says. For goodness sakes, have you no common sense at all?

You don't have a "virtually undisputed quote". You’re merely clutching at a 'virtual' straw.
As only ONE supposed quote, ONE tiny questionable mention throughout the whole of history, it remains independantly uncorroborated, unverifiable, most probably interpolated anyway or even forged, as other similar wording has been proved to be.

Obviously it is never going to be sufficient to stand as historical evidence, except of course to the theologians who with heavily invested interests, will always pimp their religion first at any cost to basic truth and integrity.

There are numerous biblical scholars and academics from the 17th century and even earlier, right up to the modern day, who point to the total lack of proper evidence to support a historical Jesus.

Go look them up for a change and get a little insight for once.

 

[traderwann]

Quote from stu:If you want to establish that Jesus existed historically, of course you need historical evidence. That's what makes sense.

So are you saying there are or there are not current reputable and respected sources that are anonymous (i.e. no evidence WHO wrote it or said it) specifically so only the subject matter is discussed?

The whole point here is that IF the above is true for current texts then the argument about historical validity is a red herring (or whatever academic term is appropriate, i get them mixed up sometimes). You don't need to discuss the author to discuss the content. The POINT is to discuss the content without discussing WHO wrote it or said it, just to focus on the content. Doing otherwise is part of an ad hominem argument, widely accepted as flawed.

Does what I said make sense now when put this way?

 

[stu]

Quote from traderwann:

So are you saying there are or there are not current reputable and respected sources that are anonymous (i.e. no evidence WHO wrote it or said it) specifically so only the subject matter is discussed?

The whole point here is that IF the above is true for current texts then the argument about historical validity is a red herring (or whatever academic term is appropriate, i get them mixed up sometimes). You don't need to discuss the author to discuss the content. The POINT is to discuss the content without discussing WHO wrote it or said it, just to focus on the content. Doing otherwise is part of an ad hominem argument, widely accepted as flawed.

Does what I said make sense now when put this way?

So you found the energy. Good for you!

What you say doesn't lead to historical evidence. Whether anonymous or not, author known or not, valid corroborated evidence is what's required to establish historicity.

Formally Jesus is actually no more of an historical figure than Hercules is.

 

[traderwann]

What you say doesn't lead to historical evidence. Whether anonymous or not, author known or not, valid corroborated evidence is what's required to establish historicity. Formally Jesus is actually no more of an historical figure than Hercules is.

You don't need to discuss the author to discuss the content. The POINT is to discuss the content without discussing WHO wrote it or said it, whether it speaks of a fictional character to prove a point or a real character to prove a point, just to focus on the content and the point being made. This brings into question the purpose of the whole document and the purpose of denying it. This proves to be a problem because 99% of athiests are biased and never have actually read one whole book in the bible, let alone multiple books or most of it. They don't know the real in context purpose and point, they only know what they are repeating from someone else handed down from someone else. They illogical always use "guilt by association" to ASSUME things and thereby unquestioningly (seemingly reasonably based on the guilt by association) accept these hand-me-down misinterpretations.

You have to have read it and know the real story in order to discuss the point ... so of course the reaction is to avoid this and bring the conversation back to "Jesus isn't real", to avoid doing what one can't do. To be forced to do a lot of annoying unpalatable research or admit one is wrong, that takes quite a big person, with good morals, intellectual honesty among much else. Does this make sense?

 

[stu]

Quote from traderwann:

You don't need to discuss the author to discuss the content. The POINT is to discuss the content without discussing WHO wrote it or said it, whether it speaks of a fictional character to prove a point or a real character to prove a point, just to focus on the content and the point being made. This brings into question the purpose of the whole document and the purpose of denying it. This proves to be a problem because 99% of athiests are biased and never have actually read one whole book in the bible, let alone multiple books or most of it. They don't know the real in context purpose and point, they only know what they are repeating from someone else handed down from someone else. They illogical always use "guilt by association" to ASSUME things and thereby unquestioningly (seemingly reasonably based on the guilt by association) accept these hand-me-down misinterpretations.

You have to have read it and know the real story in order to discuss the point ... so of course the reaction is to avoid this and bring the conversation back to "Jesus isn't real", to avoid doing what one can't do. To be forced to do a lot of annoying unpalatable research or admit one is wrong, that takes quite a big person, with good morals, intellectual honesty among much else. Does this make sense?

What are you talking about?

I've explained why the content of one tiny scrap of ancient writing being used by some gullible theists, supported by theologians being less than honest - questioned and refuted by religious scholars, most probably having been falsified anyways considering evidence from other similar inserts - cannot be corroborated or properly verified and therefore not relied upon in any case, as would be the norm with texts validated for use as authentic historical confirmation.
So still no historical bible Jesus.

Going off on tangents about the bible and atheists as you have above, does not change anything.

However, reading in the way you are suggesting the Bible should be read, by interpretation, would make Mein Kampf a repository of inspirational moral fortitude.

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from traderwann:

You don't need to discuss the author to discuss the content. The POINT is to discuss the content without discussing WHO wrote it or said it, whether it speaks of a fictional character to prove a point or a real character to prove a point, just to focus on the content and the point being made.

is critical thinking not one of your strengths? if you read something and you dont know who wrote it and there is no evidence backing up the claim made by the unknown author just how do you determine if the content is real?

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from traderwann:

This proves to be a problem [/u]because 99% of athiests are biased and never have actually read one whole book in the bible, let alone multiple books or most of it.

this is not true at all. most athiests are x christians. i will bet money i know more about the bible than you do. who wrote it,who manufactured it and why.
more importantly i have done indepth research on the stories in the bible. stories like the creation account, the global flood, the tower of babel, the virgin birth are all myths.

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

"Your own expert - the only one you could even conjure up says this.."

A critique of Crossan written in the third person, is not what Crossan says. For goodness sakes, have you no common sense at all?

You don't have a "virtually undisputed quote". You’re merely clutching at a 'virtual' straw.
As only ONE supposed quote, ONE tiny questionable mention throughout the whole of history, it remains independantly uncorroborated, unverifiable, most probably interpolated anyway or even forged, as other similar wording has been proved to be.

Obviously it is never going to be sufficient to stand as historical evidence, except of course to the theologians who with heavily invested interests, will always pimp their religion first at any cost to basic truth and integrity.

There are numerous biblical scholars and academics from the 17th century and even earlier, right up to the modern day, who point to the total lack of proper evidence to support a historical Jesus.

Go look them up for a change and get a little insight for once.

You are a clown. 17th century experts?
is this your dating method?

<object width="480" height="360"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/fr8DIg3oHFI?version=3&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/fr8DIg3oHFI?version=3&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="480" height="360" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

 

[Max E.]

You had to do in depth research to come to the conclusion that Noah's Ark, and Jesus being born from a virgin due to immaculate conception are myths???

As your next "in depth" research assignment, perhaps you can figure out whether or not santa clause or the easter bunny are real.

Quote from Free Thinker:


more importantly i have done indepth research on the stories in the bible. stories like the creation account, the global flood, the tower of babel, the virgin birth are all myths.

 

[traderwann]

Quote from stu:
What are you talking about?

I would gladly explain if you would ask a question!

All you did is repeat yourself, just like last time. If you don't understand what I mean please ask, I would very gladly explain. I can't explain though because all you did is just repeat. So all I can do is repeat. Please, tell me what you did not understand specifically and exactly. I don't mind being wrong, but you'll have to show me a little more clearly if you want to make that point.