Jesus liked a bit of the ole Judean sausage!

[JustB]

Why?

I never claimed to be the Son of Larry…

Plus, I was never convicted of sedition by the Roman Empire.

You really should be going after Just-B.

Larry made Just-B into a real girl.

And he did it for free.

She’s much more obligated than I.

Of course, she’s paid her 5%.

You, on the other hand…

Pony up that 5% - Larry is not normally a jealous or wrathful God, but he needs his Sony fix just like any other deity.

Et tu, jabhadouken? :sad:

[System_1]

Et tu, jabhadouken? :sad:

Nah, B.

You’re one of the coolest posters in here, ma’am.

Larry’s sort of a prick though.

But as he’s God, he’s a righteous prick.

It’s all good.

The Jews even think yhwh is a prick at times, so it’s not like I’m steppin’ to say so.

(All praise Larry.)

@runaround:

Pony up!

5%, man - isn’t quality time in the sky after your corpse is rotting in the ground worth a meager 5%?

[Nick_T]

opens door
Look a religion thread
ewwww
ewwwwwwwwwww
ughhhh
"This is going nowhere"
leaves

[BudaFuka]

[media=youtube]SOfTz_M1AAk[/media]
[media=youtube]rzrKlEtxTx4[/media]
[media=youtube]o8ZnCT14nRc[/media]

[Lebowsk1]

I assume then, since you are familiar with the proceedings of the trial, you are aware that Behe remarked at one point that he does not consider as convincing the wealth of papers published in the last few decades describing evidence for the evolution of the immune system, and that, in spite of the absolute dearth of papers published or any other objective evidence in support of ID, he is nevertheless supportive of it? I think we can reasonably say at this point that he objects to abiogenesis and evolution more out of sympathy to his religious views than out of any sense of scientific responsibility.

I’m familiar with this too.

He described what happened as a “piece of courtroom theatrics”. The guy questioning him basically plonked down a massive pile of papers, literally threw them down in front of him and said “here are a load of peer-reviewed papers which prove the evolution of what you are disputing. Are you saying you do not accept their validity?”, as if Behe was supposed to go through every single fucking paper he dropped on him in the courtroom.

Behe has made clear that he does not dispute that those papers are valid in what they set out to achieve, but he disputes that what they explain is actually what he is seeking to explain. It’s like if someone threw down a paper on chemical bonds. It’s like “yes, this paper is an excellent resource for people wanting to learn about xyz. But it does not in actuality explain what I am seeking to explain.” The arguments for why they did not would differ from paper to paper, and would delve into the intricacies of evolutionary and ID theory. But to just throw them down in front of him is clearly theatrics.

I’ve listened to the guy speak on podcasts and the ‘Illustra Media’ documentaries and the like. He tirelessly trots out the same explanations over and over. I’ve read his blog and his books where he goes into more detail, and he seems passionate and genuinely convinced of the truth of his arguments.

Now, psychologically his religious beliefs may provide support for his ID-quest. But if you actually look at the arguments themselves, they have nothing to do with religious dogmas or creeds or any of that stuff. It is design inference technology. I’ve already asked you if you think the theory is applicable to human-made inventions, and I think the fact that it is shows it is a coherent idea.

Anyway, my point is that ID theory isnt so bad, and ID theorists are not all bad people out to deceive people with things they know in their heart are not true. I really think they believe it, as I did. And it’s not a bad theory at all.

I mean, I have other things to say about the interplay between science and faith… for instance, the search for a natural account of abiogenesis is prolonged by the pseudo-religious belief that there MUST be a natural explanation because natural explanations are all there are. ID guys hate that. Me, I can look at both sides pretty calmly now.

Actually, these are not the first posts we have exchanged directly, but they are for this thread.

Ah, was it the science thread back when I was in my ID hayday? Hehe there was a pretty good debate there, that ‘dust’ something guy with the bear avatar was it?

in remarking that I was tired, I was referring to the lateness of the hour and my own reluctance to go back and forth on a topic where most people have made up their minds anyway.

I’ve far from a made-up mind now. The number of concessions ID makes to evolution shocked me (even in Behe’s book Edge of Evolution) and while they didnt used to bother me so much, the fact that I just fell out of love with God (no-homo) just meant my heart wasnt in it any more, and while I don’t understand how evolution can account for biology, I’m a little more submissive to the authority of the scientific community now. I still check in at Uncommon Descent every so often though.

[Gorehound]

Did you just call Jesus a motherfucker?!

I’d believe it!
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d7/AlphaFredo/JesusGoesDownOnYourMom.png

[runaround]

snip

Please check your pms.

[FurryCurry]

Props. I thought this thread would have been shut down a long time ago but it’s almost scary how well everyone is debating without getting e-emotional in here. No butt hurt folk here.

[BEWD]

^Save Cisco

But early thread of the year candidate? Probably the first actual intellectual debate regarding religon(with a heaping helping of philosophy) in quite a while(again, sans Cisco, but it seems we’ve all evolved past him for the most part)

[BullDancer]

Larry down the street was crucified and rose from his grave.

I saw it.

Larry is God.

Please believe.

Devote your entire existence to him.

He’ll give you everything good in life that you could possibly want.

After you die.

This sounds quite reasonable considering we voted for George Bush and his son twice. I’m down.

[runaround]

snip

Sorry, I’ve been here on SRK quite a while but I’ve never bought prem (so far) and I don’t know who is Larry.

Who is Larry?

[BullDancer]

Sorry, I’ve been here on SRK quite a while but I’ve never bought prem (so far) and I don’t know who is Larry.

Who is Larry?

Our lord, brother runaround. Donate your currency and he fixes shit that is wrong with your life.

[fishjie]

Let me get this straight. I sit there and give you the undeniable historical consensus on Jesus and specific details surrounding the crucifixion and then you turn around and show me that you are the historian, against the entire historical community? So even those people like Ludemann and Erhman that oppose the resurrection hypothesis that completely accept these things must have not have been considerate as you of the historical facts.

Eh? When I said I won’t respond to all the posts, I was referring to the fact that the thread has exploded since we began our conversation. There’s no way I am going to respond to all your posts, especially considering that they are addressed to other posters. This is unfortunate, because there are lots of points in your posts to others that I wanted to address, plus I’ve been wanting to have a religious debate with you for a while now. Oh well.

How am I claiming to be the historian? And since when did I need to be a historian to talk about these things? If that’s the criteria, than you are hardly an expert either, and we should just stop posting now. Fact of the matter is, the experts all universally agree the gospels were written decades later. Their internal inconsistencies and the inconsistencies with other gospels are there in the new testament itself. None of what I’m claiming requires me to be an expert, any student who attended seminary would agree.

So you’re saying that Alexander left a mark? Jesus clearly didn’t - look at early Christianity (you know, the huge amount of conversions and such). What else did you expect from Jesus, given who he was?

Under this logic, Zeus must have existed, because look at Greek religion, I mean Zeus had a following for centuries and tons of worshippers. Hell, the Romans even adopted him as Jupiter.

Do you see this folks? Jesus should have written a book. Those disciples with him just made him up, oh, I’m sorry, I mean PAUL the convert to the religion that he invented. You’ve completely baffled historians. They’ll rethink their more complex criteria based on how you think things should be.

All the other religious leaders of major world religions today authored their own writings. Muhammad wrote the quran, Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, L Ron Hubbard wrote his own sci fi novel, Confucius wrote the five classics. In Christianity, Paul was the one who laid the theological basis for the religion. Not John, not Matthew, and certainly not Jesus. Paul’s writings were first, way before the gospels. Again, this is common knowledge, nothing controversial here. Anyone whose attended seminary knows this. None of Paul’s writings does it mention that he ever met Jesus (as you and I are both well aware, his meeting with Jesus happened in Acts, which is written by Luke), nor does he add a speck of historical documentation about Jesus. This is all in the New Testemant, which anyone can read, no need to be an expert.

Listen guys, things are bullshit if the historian himself wasn’t involved in a situation and took eyewitness accounts. Back then there were video cameras and much better ways to see what really happened than pathetic human testimony from a culture that had a very highly developed system of transmission (which was ignored). With that in mind, it was even easier to pull the wool over the Jews eyes because they knew what was going on!

Again, as pointed out by others, the shorter the interval of time, the more sources you have, the more consistent the sources, and the more archaeological evidence you have for something, the more reliable it is. And there is of course, the difference between reliability of the text itself, and the content. The Book of Mormon was released 7 years after it was written by Joseph Smith. Is the text itself accurate? Historians agree, today’s text is a faithful copy of the source. But is it a reliable history? Nah.

And, as I mentioned in my previous post, there are plenty of errors and inconsistencies in the gospels to make them hard to take seriously. I had to look up this info in books, which is why I didn’t put them in my original post (credit for these goes to Losing Faith in Faith by Dan Barker, a former born again, evangelical, fundamentalist preacher):

Matthew says Jesus was born during Herod’s reign (he died in 4 BC), Luke says he was born when Quirinius was governor of Syria (governor in 6 AD). Luke says he was born during the Roman census (one occurred during 6 AD - Palestine became part of Rome in 6 AD). They can’t both be correct.

Matthew reports Herod slaughtered all the first born. No other historian makes note of this. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but given how well documented other Roman atrocities are, gives you pause.

The well known inconsistency of the genealogies, Luke’s gives 43 names from Joseph to David, whereas Matthew gives 28 names from David to Joseph. The common apologetic response is that Matthew’s is Joseph’s lineage, and Luke’s is through Mary, but of course, Luke clearly specifies this is Joseph’s lineage. Plus, the genealogies intersect: Shealtiel and Zerubbabel.

There’s also a good essay on the inconsistencies of the resurrection account, but I’ll post that up next time.

We all know how the Islamic sources are the same as the Gospels! They are equal in historicity (I’m being sarcastic as I often am in this response, for those that didn’t notice)!

Oh wow, the irony. Are you an expert in Islam and its history? If not, aren’t you kind of talking out of your ass? Why not use the same critical eye that you use against Islam toward your own religion? I kind of wish the muslim SRK posters were here, cause I’m sure they would have a thing or two to say about this post.

Anyway, you sound kinda mad and sarcastic in your post, not sure why. Again, everything I’m stating is either agreed upon by historical scholars, and or available for confirmation by reading the NT.

edit: Oooh almost forgot to mention. In your previous post, you talk about how its documented that jesus appears to all sorts of people after his resurrection. The earliest copies of Mark, end with the women finding the empty tomb. It does not mention the resurrection at all. Most scholars agree that the last twelve verses in Mark are dubious:

Starting in the 19th century, textual critics have commonly asserted that Mark 16:9?20, describing some disciples’ encounters with the resurrected Jesus, was a later addition to the gospel. Mark 16:8 stops at the empty tomb without further explanation. The last twelve verses are missing from the oldest manuscripts of Mark’s Gospel.[55] The style of these verses differs from the rest of Mark, suggesting they were a later addition. In a handful of manuscripts, a “short ending” is included after 16:8, but before the “long ending”, and exists by itself in one of the earliest Old Latin codices, Codex Bobiensis. By the 5th century, at least four different endings have been attested. (See Mark 16 for a more comprehensive treatment of this topic.) Possibly, the Long Ending (16:9-20) started as a summary of evidence for Jesus’ resurrection and the apostles’ divine mission, based on other gospels.[56] It was likely composed early in the second century and incorporated into the gospel around the middle of the second century.[56] Mark might have originally ended abruptly at verse 8, the gospel might be unfinished, or the original ending might be lost.

[P.Gorath]

Kix just come to Evo and fish and I will get you drunk and have you worshipping Ba’al while doing blow off a hooker’s asshole

Also I think [media=youtube]oMVAc0pgnOw&feature=related[/media] is relevant

[StarvinMarvin]

Anyway, you sound kinda mad and sarcastic in your post, not sure why. Again, everything I’m stating is either agreed upon by historical scholars, and or available for confirmation by reading the NT.

edit: Oooh almost forgot to mention. In your previous post, you talk about how its documented that jesus appears to all sorts of people after his resurrection. The earliest copies of Mark, end with the women finding the empty tomb. It does not mention the resurrection at all. Most scholars agree that the last twelve verses in Mark are dubious:

Wiki is not a reliable source, any quoting from in it is questionable.

Is Mark 16:9-20 Inspired?

Nevertheless, the sheer magnitude of the witnesses that support verses 9-20 cannot be summarily dismissed out of hand. Though rejecting the genuineness of the verses, the Alands offer the following concession that ought to give one pause: ?It is true that the longer ending of Mark 16:9-20 is found in 99 percent of the Greek manuscripts as well as the rest of the tradition, enjoying over a period of centuries practically an official ecclesiastical sanction as a genuine part of the gospel of Mark? (1987, p. 287, emp. added). Such longstanding and widespread acceptance cannot be treated lightly nor dismissed easily. It is, at least, possible that the prevalence of manuscript support for the verses is due to their genuineness…

[StarvinMarvin]

Anyway, you sound kinda mad and sarcastic in your post, not sure why. Again, everything I’m stating is either agreed upon by historical scholars, and or available for confirmation by reading the NT.

edit: Oooh almost forgot to mention. In your previous post, you talk about how its documented that jesus appears to all sorts of people after his resurrection. The earliest copies of Mark, end with the women finding the empty tomb. It does not mention the resurrection at all. Most scholars agree that the last twelve verses in Mark are dubious:

Wiki is not a reliable source, any quoting from in it is questionable.

Is Mark 16:9-20 Inspired?

Nevertheless, the sheer magnitude of the witnesses that support verses 9-20 cannot be summarily dismissed out of hand. Though rejecting the genuineness of the verses, the Alands offer the following concession that ought to give one pause: ?It is true that the longer ending of Mark 16:9-20 is found in 99 percent of the Greek manuscripts as well as the rest of the tradition, enjoying over a period of centuries practically an official ecclesiastical sanction as a genuine part of the gospel of Mark? (1987, p. 287, emp. added). Such longstanding and widespread acceptance cannot be treated lightly nor dismissed easily. It is, at least, possible that the prevalence of manuscript support for the verses is due to their genuineness…

All the other religious leaders of major world religions today authored their own writings. Muhammad wrote the quran, Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, L Ron Hubbard wrote his own sci fi novel, Confucius wrote the five classics. In Christianity, Paul was the one who laid the theological basis for the religion. Not John, not Matthew, and certainly not Jesus. Paul’s writings were first, way before the gospels. Again, this is common knowledge, nothing controversial here. Anyone whose attended seminary knows this. None of Paul’s writings does it mention that he ever met Jesus (as you and I are both well aware, his meeting with Jesus happened in Acts, which is written by Luke), nor does he add a speck of historical documentation about Jesus. This is all in the New Testemant, which anyone can read, no need to be an expert.

I don’t want to argue with the rest of your posts since it is directed to kix, yet this one caught my attention. What you said here is indication that you need to research more.

There is no religious leader of early AD (especially those with in Palestine) that his own writings. There was a tradition called “ORAL TRADITION”. Using the “Jesus doesn’t have first hand writings” as an argument will get you a failing mark in any history thesis you will propose. There are no first hand writings of Priests during that time as well, does this mean the existence of Priests/Rabbi’s/Religious teachers are to be questionable?

Didn’t you read Cisco’s list of the gospels and their datelines? The historian, Luke writings 2 gospels, Acts being his second one. Acts shows that others besides Paul knew and believed in the same Christian theology, so what basis is there to show now for the argument of Paul being the originator? The book of Acts shows that their where believers before Paul.

[Cisco]

hmm… this was supposed to be a debate on the historicity of Jesus, going into the theology is against the rules and it does lead no where. The Historical Jesus isn’t exactly a religion debate so i think it’s excusable here. The whole existence God thing will be solved when we all die anyway.

[Lebowsk1]

Wiki is not a reliable source, any quoting from in it is questionable.

http://www.apologeticspress.org

Could we please try to understand the meta-point here is that people (who we have agreed are NOT infallible, including yourself) have different ideas about what is a “reliable source”.

You are just as fallible a human being as I am. So when I say “apologetics press is not a reliable source”, and you say “wikipedia is not a reliable source” then well, we could look into it and agree to differ.

But when you say “the Bible is a 100% reliable source”, and I beg to differ, you have to understand that is because you are expecting ridiculous levels of reliability from a document that is not peer reviewed, was not developed during a time or place of a free press, is 2000 years old and which claims to offer the ultimate explanation for all of life and existence

[StarvinMarvin]

Could we please try to understand the meta-point here is that people (who we have agreed are NOT infallible, including yourself) have different ideas about what is a “reliable source”.

You are just as fallible a human being as I am. So when I say “apologetics press is not a reliable source”, and you say “wikipedia is not a reliable source” then well, we could look into it and agree to differ.

But when you say “the Bible is a 100% reliable source”, and I beg to differ, you have to understand that is because you are expecting ridiculous levels of reliability from a document that is not peer reviewed, was not developed during a time or place of a free press, is 2000 years old and which claims to offer the ultimate explanation for all of life and existence

Um. You do know the value of sources in this type of argument, right? The reason why wiki isn’t a good source is that anybody write in it. Wiki states it itself that it isn’t a primary source. Academical sources from academic authority is what is needed for support. You can’t pass a research paper with out valuable sources. You are making assumptions and excuses but the academics say that the Leader of Christianity was in no way a myth. Saying he never existed is contradictory to historical academics.

As a former atheist, i know the value of evidence. Claiming that historians are mistaken takes allot of balls because you need to show why. Jesus’ documentations are much more compelling compared to anybody with in his generation. His historicity is only attacked by anti-theists because they are that reluctant to debunk Christianity. The attempts in debunking Christianity has been around ever since early AD. It was only by the 19th or 20th century where the Jesus-Myth was constructed, and the originators of that conspiracy where admitted Free masons and Satanists: Helena Blavatsky, Churchwood, and other names that are slipping my mind right now.

I hope you didn’t buy into the “God who wasn’t there movie” or “Zeitgeist movie”.

[Cisco]

Fact of the matter is, the experts all universally agree the gospels were written decades later. Their internal inconsistencies and the inconsistencies with other gospels are there in the new testament itself.

This isn’t the fact of the matter, because there are no serious scholars that even say the gospels were written decades later, exemption to John’s gospel. I already gave something on this that shows that Mark, Matt, Luke, Acts, and the epistles where written less than a decade past 33 AD. Please, stop giving those baseless and sourceless arguments. You are coughing up old refuted conspiracies made by non-scholars and quoting off wiki, yet you got the balls to start pointing out who’s posts are atrocious? There are no inconsistencies nor any contradictions worthy to even consider. http://contenderministries.org/discrepancies/contradictions.php