davidylan:

The exact same way they achieved consensus on EVERY OTHER SCIENTIFIC issue like gravity for example without having to vote.

So if the vote goes 20% red, 30% pink, 30% grey and 20% black (REAL EXAMPLE on a vote on the Lord's prayer) . . . the conclusion was a "consensus" for GREY even though at 50% voted for red-pink!

Is that your own idea of a consensus? So if i can now put up my project to a vote and complete my thesis in 2 weeks?

but this was not something they could carry out empirical experiments on, aside from the fact that red-pink was not a color of beads, grey-black was also 50% so tell us a better way they would have done it.

Chrisbenogor:

but this was not something they could carry out empirical experiments on

You're just looking for an escape route dude, this is bogus and makes no sense. Even journals of theology dont put their papers to vote, they are critically reviewed by a peer-review process. But of course you can keep peddling your voting nonsense . . . even though Bob Funk also HANDPICKED the members of the JS and openly fired those who disagreed with him . . . what a wonderful academic review board.

What of those who publish in journals of theology or psychology? since they cant test their hypothesis empirically they just vote to achieve consensus? Even a 10yr old wont spew this nonsense.

Chrisbenogor:

aside from the fact that red-pink was not a color of beads, grey-black was also 50% so tell us a better way they would have done it.

So they were essentially deadlocked 50-50 but they chose the 50% that agreed with their personal agenda no?

seeklove:

Quote from: davidylan on Today at 08:21:08 PMEven in the above scripture that you qouted, it shows clearly that those who beleive in him shall not perish. Therefore what is nesscary is to believe in him which means to believe His words. I dont see where it says that only those that believe in Crucifation as having payed for thier sins will have eternal life.

The emphasis is on "believeth in him" . To believe in His words and live acordinly.

If I tell you to beleieve in me.  Am I telling you to believe in my Crucification or am I telling you to believe in my words? Please answer!

Those words also include believing on the power of His blood to save you from sin. But keep selectively reading the bible though.

davidylan:



What a load of rubbish. So Christ was lifted up like the snake how? they just used rope and tied him to a stake and left Him there?

Dude, I told you that was a methaphor. But yes He was lifted up(Make known to the world, glorified or put on a pedestal). Yes He wa lifted up just like the snake was lifted up!

Dude I will not argue with you anymore. You have started to insult because you are losing grounds. You are completely brainwashed. I pity people like you who have no thought or opinion of themselvs, they keep repeating the same jargon that pastors say.

Your PHD is definitely not in phylosophy, niether is it in religion or spirituality. Obviosly you find it very difficult to grasp spiritual things.

Bye

davidylan:

You're just looking for an escape route dude, this is bogus and makes no sense. Even journals of theology dont put their papers to vote, they are critically reviewed by a peer-review process. But of course you can keep peddling your voting nonsense . . . even though Bob Funk also HANDPICKED the members of the JS and openly fired those who disagreed with him . . . what a wonderful academic review board.

What of those who publish in journals of theology or psychology? since they cant test their hypothesis empirically they just vote to achieve consensus? Even a 10yr old wont spew this nonsense.

So they were essentially deadlocked 50-50 but they chose the 50% that agreed with their personal agenda no?

Those words also include believing on the power of His blood to save you from sin. But keep selectively reading the bible though.

no they were not a larger percentage was gray so they won shikena

seeklove:

Dude, I told you that was a methaphor. But yes He was lifted up(Make known to the world, glorified or put on a pedestal). Yes He wa lifted up just like the snake was lifted up!

Rubbish . . . you folks have 2 excuses when the bible exposes your lies:
a. they put it there after the death of Jesus
b. its a metaphor

He was crucified just like he prophesied . . . every christian understands that "lifted up" to be crucifiction.

seeklove:

Dude I will not argue with you anymore. [b]You have started to insult because you are losing grounds. [/b]You are completely brainwashed. I pity people like you who have no thought or opinion of themselvs, they keep repeating the same jargon that pastors say.

The usual escapist drivell when they run out of steam. I didnt even insult you, simply responded to your own iinsults which you hypocrite of course never saw. The brainwashing is you dude . . . even when facts are put in front of you, you cant see it.

seeklove:

Your PHD is definitely not in phylosophy, niether is ut in religion or spiritualy. Obviosly you find it cery difficult to grasp spiritual things.

Bye

at least i have one . . . where is yours? These are the set of trolls who sit here querying the educational qualifications of others? Such a disgrace.

Chrisbenogor:

no they were not a larger percentage was gray so they won shikena

Pretty stupid. 30% was pink, 30% was gray . . . what are you talking about?

I asked and you still havent responded . . . is voting the means of publishing papers in the journals of theology or psychology?

You spend so much time telling us how the rigorous peer-review process is the reason evolution is more reasonable to creationism and you come up with this crap?

@chrisbenogor. This is one of the "evil" guys describing the process and what the vote means. Note how he doesn't pretend to be a final authority. These guys are made to look like a bunch of evil guys with an agenda against Christianity. ( u can watch the whole thing. he describes gray at about 5:20)

grey isn't a bad thing, dadidylan. If u don't know just ask. Why are u so defensive all the time? No be fight nah

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_BfTlz0xME&hl=en&fs=1&[/flash]

Krayola2:

@chrisbenogor. This is one of the "evil" guys describing the process and what the vote means. Note how he doesn't pretend to be a final authority. These guys are made to look like a bunch of evil guys with an agenda against Christianity. ( u can watch the whole thing. he describes gray at about 5:20)

grey isn't a bad thing, dadidylan. If u don't know just ask. Why are u so defensive all the time? No be fight nah

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_BfTlz0xME&hl=en&fs=1&[/flash]

I havent said its bad, just pls do NOT refer to these people as following due academic process. In science we DO NOT DO SECRET VOTE!

Its not a secret vote, davidylan. They vote in secret, as in, no one know who votes what way. Its not that they hide in some dark dungeon and vote. chill out with this conspiracy shit.

its not a show of hands type of vote. . they cast ballots

Krayola2:

Its not a secret vote, davidylan. They vote in secret, as in, no one know who votes what way. Its not that they hide in some dark dungeon and vote. chill out with this conspiracy shit.

err can anyone help me understand this confusion? Its not a secret vote but they vote in secret?   Perhaps you need some sleep.
I have never heard of a peer-review process where scholars disagree in secret and cant be held accountable for their scientific positions on a matter.

Krayola2:

its not a show of hands type of vote. . they cast ballots

Secret ballots . . .

So please you know any other scientific methodology that employs secret balloting? That would be interesting to know.

how is that fraudulent? U're pathetic, men.

Krayola2:

how is that fraudulent? U're pathetic, men.

It is fraudulent to stake this claim about "scholars" who use secret balloting: They base their stuff on research, and not theology. Theology already assumes certain truths. that God created the world, that miracles happen etc. so they always make the kinds of arguments we hear on Nairaland. The Jesus seminar are Christian scholars that follow the academic process.

No! Secret balloting is NOT a form of "research" . . .

No! Academic process does not involve secret balloting . . .

and i'm the pathetic one? dude you're sinking fast . . . and that's a shame because you sound like a reasonable but sadly misled young man. Its ok to NOT believe the bible, but to go to great extent to denigrate it . . . putting your intellect into question in the process is just a shame.

The thing is that the gospels u are talking about is not even something thats important. Its just something conspiracy theorists hold on to and spew all over the place. U guys can't find anything solid to lament about, so u go on and on about a VOTE. A VOTE for bleeps sake. gimme a fukn break.

anyways. this is getn boring. enjoy ur life of delusion. I'm out

wait, so if they did a show of hands, then u'll embrace them? cause thats pretty much what ur argument is . . .

u see. u have nothing else. Payce!!

Krayola2:

The thing is that the gospels u are talking about is not even something thats important. Its just something conspiracy theorists hold on to and spew all over the place. U guys can't find anything solid to lament about, so u go on and on about a VOTE. A VOTE for bleeps sake. gimme a fukn break.

anyways. this is getn boring. enjoy ur life of delusion. I'm out

what a joke this guy is.  
Now its back to the conspiracy theory of how the gospels arent valid afterall now that one leg of your excuse has crashed?   And you call gospels that have survived 2000 yrs of attacks as mere "conspiracy theories"? Your own frivolous and unproven drivel is what you call fact?  

No we're not going on and on about a vote because it is something to lament on, it is simply to highlight the hypocrisy and the shifting sands of inconsistency that the atheist conspiracy is based on. One minute the rigorous peer-review process is the reason science far supercedes creationism now all of a sudden . . . a farce like secret balloting is equivalent to science?

You are a national joke.  

Krayola2:

wait, so if they did a show of hands, then u'll embrace them? cause thats pretty much what ur argument is . . .

u see. u have nothing else. Payce!!

You still dont understand my argument . . . sadly i think that has to do with how immature your sense of logic is.

Voting is NOT a valid scientific research process like you initially alleged. If i had not taken the time to look up the JS, you would have gotten away with the blatant LIE that they "base their stuff on research, and not theology". None of you is yet to show us where voting is regarded as a vital scientific research tool!

Yeah one minute the peer review that says evolution is true is a better way to decide what Jesus said.

davidylan:

You still dont understand my argument . . . sadly i think that has to do with how immature your sense of logic is.

Voting is NOT a valid scientific research process like you initially alleged. If i had not taken the time to look up the JS, you would have gotten away with the blatant LIE that they "base their stuff on research, and not theology". None of you is yet to show us where voting is regarded as a vital scientific research tool!

Dude get a hold of yourself,

the seminar uses votes with colored beads to decide their collective view of the historicity of Jesus, specifically what he may or may not have said and done as a historical figure.

Oya rest!

Chrisbenogor:

Yeah one minute the peer review that says evolution is true is a better way to decide what Jesus said.

Peer-review doesnt even acknowledge evolution as anything more than a theory. Its not a coincidence that it isnt called a fact yet.

Chrisbenogor:

Dude get a hold of yourself, Oya rest!

Aww sorry, did your silly excuse hurt you. I wonder why that is your answer to a valid question reposted here - None of you is yet to show us where voting is regarded as a vital scientific research tool!

It cant be that hard can it?

davidylan:

Peer-review doesnt even acknowledge evolution as anything more than a theory. Its not a coincidence that it isnt called a fact yet.


Aww sorry, did your silly excuse hurt you. I wonder why that is your answer to a valid question reposted here - None of you is yet to show us where voting is regarded as a vital scientific research tool!

It cant be that hard can it?

David gravity and what Jesus said are two different things, how can one carry out a scientific research into what someone said? are you ok? we can only agree to disagree based on the evidence before us. Your question is invalid unless of course you can give us the scientific alternative they would have used.

Chrisbenogor:

David gravity and what Jesus said are two different things, how can one carry out a scientific research into what someone said? are you ok? we can only agree to disagree based on the evidence before us. Your question is invalid unless of course you can give us the scientific alternative they would have used.

With all due respect sir, the above here is basically stupid. I asked a question earlier and you have struggled desperately to sidestep it . . . psychologists and theologists carry out "scientific research" too . . . how many of the use secret balloting to differentiate between facts and theory? To say this question is invalid is to expose your hypocrisy and completely destroy your constant bleating about "peer review" process giving science a leg up over creationists.

A serious non-biased academic study into the validity of the bible has been carried out by so many other scholars who have published their works and had them go through very rigorous peer review groups.

[size=16pt]This is the bottomline - SECRET BALLOTING HAS NO PLACE in a scientific enquiry![/size]

You can whine, lie and pretend . . . that is a fact. JS failed that very simple test and are thus a very unreliable source of serious scholarly opinion on the bible.

Chrisbenogor:

David gravity and what Jesus said are two different things, how can one carry out a scientific research into what someone said? are you ok? we can only agree to disagree based on the evidence before us. Your question is invalid unless of course you can give us the scientific alternative they would have used.

Just to buttress the sheer vapidity of this claim . . . are there no history researchers? Do they use secret ballots to determine what Nero said or didnt say?

davidylan:

A serious non-biased academic study into the validity of the bible has been carried out by so many other scholars who have published their works and had them go through very rigorous peer review groups.

For example. . . . .?

Krayola2:

For example. . . . .?

i'm sure you've heard of theological journals?

The Harvard Theological Review is one . . . i'm sure they dont determine materials to publish by secret ballot.
Here is an example of how they publish . . .

Scholarly Content
The Review covers a wide spectrum of fields. Our main criterion for publication is that an article significantly advance knowledge in its field, be intelligible, and of interest to many of our readers. Rather than being polemical in tone, articles must be aimed at furthering knowledge. Furthermore, authors must adhere to recognized scholarly standards. That is, they must include full references and must be willing and able to work with primary sources in their original languages. The Review is non-denominational and does not seek to advance any particular viewpoint or opinion.

How Articles are Reviewed

If, after an internal review process an article is deemed worthy of peer review, it is forwarded to one or more members of our independent board of consultants, someone who is especially qualified to assess a given article. The consultant's comments will be passed on to the author, whether or not the article is accepted. The review process generally takes 1-3 months. The Review does not return copies of rejected articles unless specifically requested to do so.

I didnt see any room for secret ballots by the author and his cronies there.

Harvard Theological Review (2001), 94:3:369-374 Cambridge University Press
Copyright © 2001 Cambridge University Press
doi:


A REVIEW OF JOHN DOMINIC CROSSAN'S

(THE BIRTH OF CHRISTIANITY)

François Bovon a1
a1 Harvard University The Divinity School

Abstract

[sq bullet, filled] Genre

This is a witty, passionate, remarkably written book, with a pedagogical intent. 1 In this learned book Crossan displays an extraordinary range of knowledge, from Irish literature to modern Greek folklore, in his reconstruction of the birth of Christianity. He discusses everything from four types of crucifixion to death certificates in eighteenth-century London, from medical to anthropological opinions concerning dreams and visions. This expansive approach impacts our knowledge of antiquity through his insights concerning the sociology of the ancient world, specifically the relationship between rural and urban life. Although he does not mention Papias's opinion on oral communication, 2 he provides valuable pages on memory and oral tradition. Using quotations in a style reminiscent of Montaigne, who in the 16th century decorated his study with emblematic quotations of classical authors not as a source of authority, but as a source of inspiration, Crossan provides an unusual, scholarly work. Much like Montaigne, Crossan often speaks as a moralist, focused on justice as the main characteristic of Jesus and the Jesus movement. It is thus clear that Crossan's own creed maintains that Christianity was in the beginning and still should be a movement of revolt against economic oppression and a struggle for the God of justice.


Footnotes

1 John Dominic Crossan, The Birth of Christianity: Discovering What Happened in the Years Immediately after the Execution of Jesus (New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1998). I would like to thank here two friends, Ann Graham Brock and Christopher R. Matthews, who both read this paper and revised its English carefully. These pages were written before I found N. T. Wright's review and John Dominic Crossan's response. See N. T. Wright, “A New Birth? An Article Review of John Dominic Crossan's The Birth of Christianity…,” SJT 53 (2000) 72–91; John Dominic Crossan, “Blessed Plot: A Reply to N.T. Wright's Review of The Birth of Christianity,” ibid., 92–112.

2 Papias's opinion is preserved by Eusebius of Caesarea, Hist. Eccl. 3.39.3–4.

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=102053
--------------------------------------------------

davidylan:


A serious non-biased academic study into the validity of the bible has been carried out by so many other scholars who have published their works and had them go through very rigorous peer review groups.

please provide us some info about these studies. what kind of validity? historical validity? that is accurately describes actual events? I MUST SEE THESE STUDY AND THE REVIEWS!! I MUST!!

davidylan:

Ridiculous because even Matthew, the very first gospel is the one that most plainly talks about the crucifiction as God's way of being the propitiation for our sins.

Matthew was not the first Gospel. Mark was. It was written between 10-20 years earlier than Matthew and was used as a source document for Matthew and Luke.

Mark had no virgin birth. And no Jesus appearance after death. That was added later. check ur bible, it should have footnotes.

davidylan:

A serious non-biased academic study into the validity of the bible has been carried out by so many other scholars who have published their works and had them go through very rigorous peer review groups

And what did they find? Were the biblical(New Testament) narratives(historical) correct? Example did all the Jewish saints that were dead really walk the streets and appeared to every body to see when jesus was crucified?

Krayola2:

Matthew was not the first Gospel. Mark was. It was written between 10-20 years earlier than Matthew and was used as a source document for Matthew and Luke.

Mark had no virgin birth. And no Jesus appearance after death. That was added later. check ur bible, it should have footnotes.

That's the problem when people that do not really know what they are talking about come and begin to make forceful statements like "Matthew is the first gospel". I wonder who told him that.

@davidylan: « #124 on: Today at 11:12:10 AM »

Quote from: davidylan on Today at 02:38:57 AM
A serious non-biased academic study into the validity of the bible has been carried out by so many other scholars who have published their works and had them go through very rigorous peer review groups

Stop it, david! How serious can it be, when its the Christians who are the one carrying the serious non-biased academic study. What do you expect? A result that will proof their Holy Book false?

Lets commission a Jewish scholarship on this. Or a hindu scholarship or an Atheist/Agnostic scholarship. These are the people who will be disinterested and if they are honest, they will give somewhat more unbiased report than what a Christian report will ever produce!

The case of Christians reporting on Christian Holy Book reminds me of yoruba adage that may loosely translate to "who should the flies/germs favor except the person with an open sore, since thats where it will feed?" Tell me, David, how many holy spirit(s) is/are available, considering that you, a Christian have accepted "Another Comforter" as the Holy Spirit, hence if there is an Another, definitely there was a Former, in this case a former Comforter/former Holy spirit?

You can go to the thread for it, if you do not want to go of topic here. Is not like you are on topic, any how! You will find anyway to deviate and talk about the mundanes! I gave you a propject on the surface appearance of the body of water at sunset, you have spent all summer not making a simple visual observation even for your own information, with all the lakes and ponds and etc in Rochester! Here you are arguing on something the oter guys are schooling you on. Abeg go perform the visual experiment, ol boy!

Davidylan, I presented the following quotes from revelation to show that Jesus himself said every man would be judged according to his works;

And the sea gave up the dead which are in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
- Rev20:11

And, behold, i come quickly and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. - Rev22:12

and you just dismissed my observations without any explanation.

Do you understand that verse or you're just misquoting it as usual? To start with . . . as long as you're not saved by the precious blood of Jesus you are going to hell even if you were the most moral person on earth.

Works alone cannot save you! Christ's blood cleanses from all sin!

How can you accuse me of misquoting something written in plain english and in black and white, and your answer was not to proffer the correct interpretation to to make assertions outside the quotes in question.

For you to be pursuing a PHD in science, your methods of presenting your arguments is very suspect.