Most Hated Family in America

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by Credge

The Phelps family is more dead on on the tenants of Christianity than anyone else is.

Apparently the Cliff's Notes they skimmed on the subject was a little thin in a few areas.

[s0undch4s3r]

GOD HATES FAGS video

http://www.eveningservice.com/Video

[Credge]

Originally Posted by Innoc

Apparently the Cliff's Notes they skimmed on the subject was a little thin in a few areas.

Not really. They are the most well known and dead on group in regards to Christianity. Actually reading the book shows a mean and vengeful god that really hates everything but his followers, and even then he doesn't even like them.

Of course you then go to the New Testament and read the writings of people on islands eating mushrooms, false contemporary pieces about a man that possibly didn't even exist, and the plethora of additions, changes, and other things that just make it look like you're reading a books based on books that have been edited by the editors editors and then translated 20 times and edited some more.

Read the Codex Sinaiticus for the most accurate (and oldest, making it the most accurate by default) Bible we can have. You can find this bible in both English and Greek, both with loads of *'s and ( )'s so you can compare.

Read this along with your KJV, ALT, RYLT, and... any other Bible you can get your hands on.

You'll note that there are several changes made, especially in what Jesus supposedly said.

[BinaryLife]

Credge is right about translations. I was raised Jewish. My dad has a book that has both versions of the old testimate. A widely accepted Christian version and the entire Torah, translated to english. It doesn't have any of the new testimate, just two different copies of the Torah.

The meaning of passages completely changes. Especially with even Adam and Eve. In the Hebrew version God wasn't so much kicking them out as he was letting them out. As if eating the fruit was a sign of their advancement and time for them to grow. I found that interesting.

But in regaurds to this family, they claim to be christians, and even Jews who claim to be around for that good old fashioned wrath of god stuff don't believe that harshly about things. (As a whole that is. Hasedem do their own thing)

[YomMamasHouse]

I've always had an interest in reading up on the details of Jewish religion. It comes across as being similar to Christianity minus the wrath and smiting and what not.

[BinaryLife]

Yeah... apparantly God was smiteful to the Jews. Maybe he got tired of their whining.

(I say "Their" because I am not religeous and don't want to be mis construed that way. However, My fmaily and heritage is all Jewish.)

[uBeR]

Hmm, maybe Binary or Credge could point out to me where God (Yahweh) said that those who die in war shall have their funerals protested at.

[Etzell]

Originally Posted by Credge

Of course you then go to the New Testament and read the writings of people on islands eating mushrooms, false contemporary pieces about a man that possibly didn't even exist, and the plethora of additions, changes, and other things that just make it look like you're reading a books based on books that have been edited by the editors editors and then translated 20 times and edited some more.

Wait... so you call Jesus a man that possibly didn't exist, but God can't be something that doesn't exist? Nor have there been additions and changes to the OT?

[uBeR]

The historical evidence to support the existence of Jesus is pretty robust.

[Demasu]

Originally Posted by Etzell

Wait... so you call Jesus a man that possibly didn't exist, but God can't be something that doesn't exist? Nor have there been additions and changes to the OT?

That's what he's saying. I believe he also says that because something is older, it's automatically more accurate, which really isn't the case all the time. Take medical books, so much has changed over the years that the older ones don't have more accurate treatments than the new ones. But yeah, I don't think anyone likes that family.

[Hammock]

Originally Posted by Demasu

That's what he's saying. I believe he also says that because something is older, it's automatically more accurate, which really isn't the case all the time. Take medical books, so much has changed over the years that the older ones don't have more accurate treatments than the new ones. But yeah, I don't think anyone likes that family.

I'm not getting into the religious arguement here, because I'm agnostic and despise religions.

But you can't compare medical books to religious books at all. Religion is dead, as in no longer growing. All these new religious groups popping up are still based on THE one story long long ago. Since that story has been rewritten and translated a billion times, it would make the most logical sense that an older version of the story is more accurate.

It's like the game "telephone" = Purple Monkey Dishwasher

Whereas the medical field and their books are constantly growing, revising themselves. Nobody is going to come out and say that since this medical book written in the 1500's is older, that the science was more evolved and correct back then.

That's one of the biggest differences between science and religion. Science grows, it's ever changing, past wrongfull practices are admitted, and a new methods are created. But in 100 years we could again be proven wrong and a new status quo will be created. That's the great thing about science. It's only "right" in the "now".

Religion on the other hand is spent debating what 2000 year old books were trying to tell us. Who's right? Nobody knows for sure. And certainly nobody can come out today and say "The lord Jesus Christ has talked to me and has given me an 11th commandment to spread to the masses", without being proclaimed a lunatic. There's no growth in religion, just interpretation and manipulation.

Cheers,
Hammock

[Deadly Furby]

Originally Posted by YomMamasHouse

www.godhatesamerica.com
lol


EDIT and for you Scandinavians out there
www.godhatessweden.com

EDIT AGAIN... Oh shit not me too
www.godhatescanada.com

[Credge]

You guys have some serious reading issues.

1. I didn't say Jesus didn't exist, I said he might not have. I didn't go on because this information is redundant, however, the reason I say this is due to there not being any contemporary writings on him.

2. I didn't say God didn't exist because that's just as ignorant as saying God does exist. Nobody knows.

3. Yes, the older a work is it will generally be more accurate than something that is older in regards to the text that was actually written. This is especially obvious when languages like Greek, Hebrew, and Latin are not common spoken languages. Assuming that something that is (roughly) 3,000-4,000 years old has not had changes is absolutely stupid.

Originally Posted by uBeR

The historical evidence to support the existence of Jesus is pretty robust.

Actually, no it isn't. The only evidence would be of Josephus, which was found to be a fraud. The majority of historians have actually found there to be no contemporary evidence of the existence of Jesus, which is pretty shocking considering the guy was supposed to be going around curing the blind and that the Greeks and Jews were incredible at writing down and storing information.

Originally Posted by uBeR

Hmm, maybe Binary or Credge could point out to me where God (Yahweh) said that those who die in war shall have their funerals protested at.

Maybe you could point out where it says they shouldn't?

This is besides the point and you aren't reading. I said the closest.

[uBeR]

Originally Posted by Credge

Maybe you could point out where it says they shouldn't?

This is besides the point and you aren't reading. I said the closest.

OK: It doesn't in the entire OT or the NT. Satisfied? If not, you can still try to tell me where it says to do so.

[Ihmhi]

Welp, every religion/philsophical belief has its bad side. Even atheists have militant atheism. The Muslims have... well, you know. The Jews are not exactly nice at times... you know, what with the Palestinians and all. Hell, even Wiccans probably have jackasses. I like to call those people Diccans. *snicker*

[uBeR]

Originally Posted by Credge

Actually, no it isn't. The only evidence would be of Josephus, which was found to be a fraud. The majority of historians have actually found there to be no contemporary evidence of the existence of Jesus, which is pretty shocking considering the guy was supposed to be going around curing the blind and that the Greeks and Jews were incredible at writing down and storing information.

Actually it is. Selected readings for you:

Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave (New York: Doubleday, Anchor Bible Reference Library 1994), p. 964

D. A. Carson, et al., p. 50-56; Shaye J.D. Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah, Westminster Press, 1987, p. 78, 93, 105, 108

John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant, HarperCollins, 1991, p. xi-xiii

Michael Grant, p. 34-35, 78, 166, 200

Paula Fredriksen, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, Alfred A. Knopf, 1999, p. 6-7, 105-110, 232-234, 266

John P. Meier, vol. 1:68, 146, 199, 278, 386, 2:726

E.P. Sanders, pp. 12-13

Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew (Philadelphia: Fortress Press 1973), p. 37

Paul L. Maier, In the Fullness of Time, Kregel, 1991, pp. 1, 99, 121, 171; N. T. Wright, The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions, HarperCollins, 1998, pp. 32, 83, 100-102, 222

Ben Witherington III, pp. 12-20.

Have fun.

Selected quotes:

Originally Posted by R. Burridge

There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more

Originally Posted by Michael Grant

To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary

Originally Posted by Robert M. Price

I do not hold it as a dogma. I do not prefer that it be true. It is just that the evidence now seems to me to point that way. The burden of proof would seem to belong with those who believe there was an historical man named Jesus

[Credge]

Originally Posted by uBeR

Actually it is. Selected readings for you:

Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave (New York: Doubleday, Anchor Bible Reference Library 1994), p. 964

Not a historian. A priest.

D. A. Carson, et al., p. 50-56; Shaye J.D. Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah, Westminster Press, 1987, p. 78, 93, 105, 108

Carson's academic qualifications include a Bachelor's degree in Chemistry from McGill University and a Doctor of Philosophy in the New Testament from the University of Cambridge.

Not a historian.

John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant, HarperCollins, 1991, p. xi-xiii

Not a historian. He supports no evidence but makes suggestions based on a story.

Michael Grant, p. 34-35, 78, 166, 200

No book, can't comment. Michael Grant is a common name.

Paula Fredriksen, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, Alfred A. Knopf, 1999, p. 6-7, 105-110, 232-234, 266

The first historian you've mentioned. Good job. I'll grab the book tommorow.

But next time, lets find a book that's been written since the debunking of the Josephus myth.

John P. Meier, vol. 1:68, 146, 199, 278, 386, 2:726

Scholar, priest. Not a historian. No book mentioned.

E.P. Sanders, pp. 12-13

Scholar, not a historian. No book mentioned.

Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew (Philadelphia: Fortress Press 1973), p. 37

Another historian, the dead sea scroll guy. This book was written long ago and is no longer relevant. In fact, I think you'll find that the way we look at history changes every 5-10 years based on the discovery of new evidence, the way translate the older writings, and how we understand the language.

Paul L. Maier, In the Fullness of Time, Kregel, 1991, pp. 1, 99, 121, 171; N. T. Wright, The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions, HarperCollins, 1998, pp. 32, 83, 100-102, 222

A historian, also a president of some denomination of a church. Protestant I believe. See the above for why this is irrelevant.

Ben Witherington III, pp. 12-20.

Scholar, not a historian. No book given.

Next time, instead of copying and pasting something you found on a website, actually do the research, grab the books, and read them.

It's also rather odd that every single person you listed is a big member of a denomination of Christianity or Judaism.

Have some fun with this challenge:

Find me a non-christian biblical historian (there are tons) who supports the Jesus claim (there aren't tons).

Edit: Further, find me a contemporary writing that says Jesus was real.

Protip: You won't find one.

[uBeR]

As the selected quotes have pointed out to you, no respectable scholar or historian supports the "Jesus myth" hypothesis. Richard A. Burridge is reputable scholar and reverend. Michael Grant is a respected and reputable scholar. More in accord with your last statement, Robert M. Price is an atheist, a critic of the Bible, and professor of theology.

As for the books, Raymond E. Brown is a prolific scholar of the Bible. He was formerly a priest and professor. Don Carson has a doctorate in the NT. Shaye Cohen is a reputable historian, professor Hebrew literature, and rabbi.

I would continue, but I have to eat now. My point is that these people are credible scholars who have qualifications to discuss the historical context of the Bible and the existence of Jesus.

[YomMamasHouse]

Someone told me that old Roman records have his name, execution records or something. I have no problem with someone telling me existed, I would be surprised that someone who has had such an impact on history would not have existed at all. His divinity is an entirely different topic, I don't buy it for a second but I don't think there is enough reason to say he never existed.

[Credge]

Originally Posted by uBeR

As the selected quotes have pointed out to you, no respectable scholar or historian supports the "Jesus myth" hypothesis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Doherty

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Albert_Wells

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Gandy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Freke

To name a few more:

Rook Hawkins

Richard Carrier
______________________

You've got a fundamental flaw in the way you are taking this. Let me spill this all out for you.

1. There are no contemporary writings about Jesus. None. The closest to contemporary we get are the writings of Josephus in 92-93 A.D. That's 60 years after Jesus was supposed to have died, and even then it is simply a mention of the word Christ. Sadly, this isn't contemporary and isn't even considered to be his own writing because:

A. The way it was written.

B. The grammatical errors are not consistent with the way he wrote.

C. His writing was inconsistent with typical non-Christian writings on the time.

2. The Roman records have Christus and Chrestus, but no Christos, which is Greek for Christ. Not Christus. Not Chrestus.

3. Suetonius wrote sometime in 250 A.D. about Jewish unrest around the early 40's A.D. Two hundred year difference. Not contemporary.

4. Justus wrote stuff about Jesus (lived in the last half of the 1st century), however, the only person to actually read anything he wrote, which was in the 9th century, did not mention anything about Christ at all. This entire part is a myth.

Those are the main reasons why scholars, historians, and other figures believe that Jesus was a real person. However, ESPECIALLY in the last 5 years, new evidence, research, and general knowledge of how people spoke during the period, how people wrote, and and the debunking of Josephus (which was the only evidence of the existence of Jesus), etc. has shown up that has turned the academic world on it's side in regards to the existence of Jesus.

All I'm doing is simply stating the facts of current academia. Of course Christian scholars are going to support that Jesus was real, much like how many Christian scholars/historians think that the Flintstones is an accurate depiction of how life was 5,000 years ago.

Since I'm not sure if you understand the requirements for something to become fact in the world of academia, I'll give them to you.

1. It must be peer reviewed. If it does not pass peer review, it does not become fact.

2. After it is peer reviewed, it must be peer reviewed further.

3. After that peer review, it will be peer reviewed again. And again. And again.

This is why the Josephus thing is regarded as fraud. Because it didn't stand up to the scrutiny of peer review. This trend has been going on with all of the evidence of Jesus. It isn't standing up to the current knowledge and know how of the world of academia.

I won't get into the comparisons between Jesus and Horus and Krishna and Dionysus and Mithra and Zoroaster and...

Originally Posted by YomMamasHouse

Someone told me that old Roman records have his name, execution records or something. I have no problem with someone telling me existed, I would be surprised that someone who has had such an impact on history would not have existed at all. His divinity is an entirely different topic, I don't buy it for a second but I don't think there is enough reason to say he never existed.

Lack of contemporary records. The romans have no record of his life, death, or anything. The only thing that was ever written about him that was even considered contemporary was Josephus, and Jesus was dead before Josephus was even born.

Not to mention the Josephus thing has been found to be a fraud.