@chrisbenogor.  .read this. .  http://jesusandhisdeath..com/

its a book review. but it makes a similar argument to one that i subscribe to. .  for good reason

Chrisbenogor:

I think I agree on that one, I was reading about the Jesus Seminar just now to check some things, can you tell me the criteria within the religious community that makes biblical scholars stand out. Are there any scholars involved in the seminar that are well recognised?

The Jesus seminar are top notch. Which is why they have such a bad rap. 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. We use their books at school. And I know how seriously my school takes their shit. A lot of the stuff they say is uncomfortable for christians. . .it makes them very uncomfortable. ,  but they provide lots of supporting evidence and make very very strong and sound arguments. ANd they never say they have the truth. They just state their case. Theologists claim to have the truth

Krayola2:

@chrisbenogor.  .read this. .  http://jesusandhisdeath..com/

its a book review. but it makes a similar argument to one that i subscribe to. .  for good reason

i.e. it basically supports your world view even though it makes no logical sense? For example i find this very telling - At best Jesus applied Isaiah minimally to his present ordeal ("he was despised and rejected by others, a man of suffering", but not the parts later pressed into actual atonement theory ("he was wounded for our transgressions; by his bruises we are healed".

What does it mean? the author grudgingly (there really was no hiding place here) admits that Christ admitted that the prophecy of Isaiah was about Him . . . but why is the author intent on forcing the lie that only a certain part of Isaiah's prophecy applied and the latter part did not? could this be because the author himself is of the dogmatic belief that Christ did not die for our atonement and is thus ready to mangle and deceive in order to pass across this false satanic message?

It wasnt Jesus "applying Isaiah minimally", it was the author struggling to apply Isaiah minimally.

@davidylan. . .that isn't the book. its a book review. It doesn't explain everything. Why do u get so defensive. are u that insecure?

Krayola2:

@davidylan. . .that isn't the book. its a book review. It doesn't explain everything. Why do u get so defensive. are u that insecure?

Insecure isnt the word . . . you shld know that by now. I cant be insecure about the lies you peddle. They dont bother me. I'm not being defensive either, just helping you point out that even without reading the book, we already see signs of lies, fraud and hypocrisy in the work.

Krayola2:

The Jesus seminar are top notch. Which is why they have such a bad rap. 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. We use their books at school. And I know how seriously my school takes their shit. A lot of the stuff they say is uncomfortable for christians. . .it makes them very uncomfortable. ,  but they provide lots of supporting evidence and make very very strong and sound arguments. ANd they never say they have the truth. They just state their case. Theologists claim to have the truth

I think you're extrapolating your own bias here . . . the JS folks (even though i havent read much on them) dont have a bad rap because their seminars are "top notch" . . . they have a bad rap because a lot of their work is nonsense.

Dominic Crossan is NOT a "christian scholar" pls . . . anyone can make that up. Following the academic process also does not make your work any credible. the South Korean scientist who lied about his "groundbreaking" work on stem cell cloning also claimed to have followed "academic process".

Many of you dont understand how the academic process works, you automatically assume that the rest of us dont so you use it to sound credible.

Krayola2:

The Jesus seminar are top notch. Which is why they have such a bad rap. 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. We use their books at school. And I know how seriously my school takes their shit. A lot of the stuff they say is uncomfortable for christians. . .it makes them very uncomfortable. ,  but they provide lots of supporting evidence and make very very strong and sound arguments. ANd they never say they have the truth. They just state their case. Theologists claim to have the truth

Actually much of the JS "research" isnt really based on any research at all! Read this . . .

Jesus Seminar: Findings are Based on Presuppositions, Not Historical Evidence
The Jesus Seminar begins all of its debates with a shared, yet concealed, presupposition – that anything outside the realm of natural explanation can never be backed by historical evidence. Therefore, it seems no papers ever follow the stated goal of “separating historical fact from mythology.” Rather, they avoid the historical evidence, and focus instead on the presupposed problems with anything falling outside a naturalistic or materialistic explanation. To illustrate, let’s review the basis for the Seminar’s rejection of the Gospel miracles and resurrection of Jesus. In a nutshell, they hold that it's impossible for the Gospels to be historically accurate, because they record things that simply can't happen, like people walking on water, food multiplying, and people being raised from the dead. Since we live in a closed system of natural order, and God (if there is a God) does not participate in that system, then miracles simply can't happen, and thus, the New Testament accounts must be fabrications. Therefore, the general statement and presupposition of the Jesus Seminar is that the New Testament accounts of Jesus (especially the Gospels) are not historical, and thus, not a credible source of information for the true historical Jesus. Of course, this is not scholarly evaluation of the historical evidence – this is strict adherence to the philosophy of naturalism.

But did they bother to verify that these miracles can indeed NEVER occur? What was there research methodology?

Much more on JS "research" methodology . . .

Robert Funk speaks at the first meeting of the JS - Those of us who work with that hypothetical middle [between creation and the end of all things] —Jesus of Nazareth—are hard pressed to concoct any form of coherence that will unite beginning, middle, and end in some grand new fiction that will meet all the requirements of narrative. To put the matter bluntly, we are having as much trouble with the middle—the messiah—as we are with the terminal points. What we need is a new fiction that takes as its starting point the central event in the Judeo-Christian drama and reconciles that middle with a new story that reaches beyond old beginnings and endings. In sum, we need a new narrative of Jesus, a new gospel, if you will, that places Jesus differently in the grand scheme, the epic story. (italics mine)

This was BEFORE any academic scholarship to determine if the gospels were credible or not. So we see that right from its inception, the JS was NOT about academic scholarship as much as it was a determined effort to destroy the biblical account of Jesus and create a new character.

Its funny that JS refers to the biblical Jesus as a "fictional character" then goes on to say they needed a NEW FICTION! So in essence they werent looking for the REAL JESUS . . . they were simply looking to create another FICTIONAL Jesus! One stripped of any form of divinity.

So much for "academic scholarship".

LMAO

All you people in this thread mutually masturbating each other over this hypothetical nonsense. Each with a belief that his version of the fairy story is correct

Very entertaining Indeed keep up the good work.

@ Thor. haha. Its all theories. How else can u get to what happened over 2000 years ago. any suggestions? at the end f the day u have to look at the evidence urself

Much more on JS "research" methodology . . .

The Jesus Seminar: A Beady Democracy?
Part 4 of series: Unmasking the Jesus Seminar
Posted for Thursday, September 15, 2005

When I first heard of the Jesus Seminar, I envisioned scholars laboring over ancient tomes in library carrels, then presenting their findings to their colleagues in roundtable discussions, then debating the minute details of each proposal, and trying to come to a consensus, though I doubted that a consensus was likely, or even possible when it came to the question of what Jesus actually said. I knew that New Testament scholars held a wide range of views on this matter, and that their conclusions often reflected widely different starting points.

What I did not picture was a roomful of academics secretly dropping colored beads into boxes as a way of voting on what Jesus said or not. But that's exactly what happened in the Jesus Seminar. After relatively brief presentations on passages from the gospels, and minimal debate, the Seminar Fellows voted in secret by using red, pink, gray, and black beads. This was something I had never imagined, and it seemed more like a glass bead game than a serious academic exercise.

For one thing, the very notion of a secret vote impressed me as contrary to the spirit and commitment of academia. If scholars are known for anything positive, it's for publicly displaying their conclusions and their arguments so that they be supported or critiqued by others. A secret ballot contradicts this principle of openness and accountability. (I wonder if the secrecy was meant to mask the fact that the results of each vote were almost always predetermined by the makeup of the Seminar itself. Why else vote in secret?)

In case you're unfamiliar with the meaning of the Seminar's bead game, let me explain. The beads indicated the extent to which a scholar believed a certain saying attributed to Jesus to be uttered by Jesus or not. According to the helpful paraphrase in The Five Gospels (the summary of the Jesus Seminar findings written by Robert Funk and Roy Hoover), the beads had the following significance:

red:    That's Jesus!
pink:  Sure sounds like Jesus.
gray:  Well, maybe.
black: There's been some mistake.

Then, when the votes were in, they were given numerical value and averaged, so that each saying of Jesus ended up with a red, pink, gray, or black color. These results were published in The Five Gospels, with verses printed in the appropriate colors.

Wow . . . but here was what Krayola2 said about the JS . . .

Krayola2:

The Jesus seminar are top notch. Which is why they have such a bad rap. 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. We use their books at school. And I know how seriously my school takes their shit. A lot of the stuff they say is uncomfortable for christians. . .it makes them very uncomfortable. ,  but they provide lots of supporting evidence and make very very strong and sound arguments. ANd they never say they have the truth. They just state their case. Theologists claim to have the truth

Does Krayola2 even KNOW about the JS? 

haha. The thing is that they don't try to defend themselves from all these critics. they don't care to. they're a bunch of nerds that just do nerd stuff. the church is an industry worth about a trillion dollars. do u think theyre goin to let a bunch of nerds come and shit on their parade? i doubt it. They do a lot more work than ur pastor

Krayola2:

haha. The thing is that they don't try to defend themselves from all these critics. they don't care to. they're a bunch of nerds that just do nerd stuff. the church is an industry worth about a trillion dollars. do u think theyre goin to let a bunch of nerds come and shit on their parade, i doubt it. They do a lot more work than ur pastor

that isnt the issue . . . what is at stake are two things:

1. You LIED about the JS, you didnt even know them . . . yet you claimed they worked just like the "academic process" which i know has nothing to do with voting secretly with colored beads.

2. You base your entire FAITH (that is what it is) in the hands of groups like the JS whose agenda from the very begining was to create a new fiction for you . . . bereft of the true divinity of Christ. A type of fictional character a sinner could be comfortable with.

This is not about the church, as far as i know the church isnt interested in the JS as much as letting those who are interested know the FACTS. If the church felt threatened the JS wouldnt even exist. Try opening a Mohammad Seminar MS in a muslim country for starters.

So dont (as is usual with slimy frauds like you) try to make this what it is not about. Its not the church, its deluded people like you who swallow way more unbelievable nonsense from the likes of the JS than you would find in the bible that is the issue.

U're s insincere, its sad to watch you go.

U sound like a politician making straw man arguments. I can't evn reply u cause u don't know what ure talking about.

2nd, I have no faith. I'm not christian. My understanding of the bible is based on the work of academics, and not theologians. that's the difference between us

Let me ask u something, find me one instance of a Jesus seminar scholar badmouthing others, or even responding to any attack. They don't. their work isn't about that. They are not sentimental. . .they don't have an agenda.

Krayola2:

U're s insincere, its sad to watch you go.

U sound like a politician making straw man arguments. I can't evn reply u cause u don't know what ure talking about.

Lets be more honest . . . you cant reply because - you truly dont understand the issues and its hard to simply copy-paste anything at the moment. You have only one track - the bible is wrong! you use anything, even if it requires lying (which you do effortlessly), personal insults (which would normally discourage others from taking on your numerous false representations of the bible) and pretended nonchallance (which is odd for someone who claims to not have faith but spends 99% of his time "debating" faith) . . . to further that notion.

Krayola2:

2nd, I have no faith. I'm not christian. My understanding of the bible is based on the work of academics, and not theologians. that's the difference between us

which is funny because much of it is based on the work of the likes of JS who ratify their opinions NOT ON SCHOLARLY RESEARCH but on secret ballot votes using colored beads.

And someone accuses the christian of being the fool.  

Krayola2:

Let me ask u something, find me one instance of a Jesus seminar scholar badmouthing others, or even responding to any attack. They don't. their work isn't about that. They are not sentimental. . .they don't have an agenda. 

lol does this fellow even read the works of those he supports? I just posted the VERY FIRST STATEMENT by founder of JS, Robert Funk . . . at the very first meeting of the JS . . . i reproduce it again.

Robert Funk speaks at the first meeting of the JS - Those of us who work with that hypothetical middle [between creation and the end of all things] —Jesus of Nazareth—are hard pressed to concoct any form of coherence that will unite beginning, middle, and end in some grand new fiction that will meet all the requirements of narrative. To put the matter bluntly, we are having as much trouble with the middle—the messiah—as we are with the terminal points. What we need is a new fiction that takes as its starting point the central event in the Judeo-Christian drama and reconciles that middle with a new story that reaches beyond old beginnings and endings. In sum, we need a new narrative of Jesus, a new gospel, if you will, that places Jesus differently in the grand scheme, the epic story. (italics mine)

If that sounds like someone who had no agenda then i've got an oceanfront villa in the Carribean i'd like to sell to you.

Krayola2:

@ Thor. haha. Its all theories. How else can u get to what happened over 2000 years ago. any suggestions? at the end f the day u have to look at the evidence urself

I think we should look forward and not necessarily backwards. History is a fine subject, but it makes more sense in plowing our energies into improving our futures

Thor:

I think we should look forward and not necessarily backwards. History is a fine subject, but it makes more sense in plowing our energies into improving our futures

Sounds wise to me, the past is loads of fun though.
@david
That was some serious copy and pasting you did there, something you hate abi
Why are you against voting, is it not what is mostly used to decide stuff after examining the evidence?

Thor:

I think we should look forward and not necessarily backwards. History is a fine subject, but it makes more sense in plowing our energies into improving our futures

amen to that.

@ Chrisbenogor

SInce the academic integrity of the Jesus seminar is what is at stake here, how do we solve this. . .hhmmmmnn.

Okay, Chrisbenogor. . .how about you look up the top universities in the world that offer religious studies, check their course descriptions of courses about Jesus, Paul and christianity in general, and find out who wrote their textbooks. I bet my two testicles 90% of them are written by members of the Jesus seminar. YOu can start at the Harvard divinity school 


then look them up on youtube, and u'll see how many things pop up trying to discredit them, and u'll hardly ever (if ever) find them make any attacks or even defend themselves.

Now ask yourself, if they are embraced by the academic community, and despised by pastors and theologians, is the question really about their academic integrity?

Chrisbenogor:

Sounds wise to me, the past is loads of fun though.
@david
That was some serious copy and pasting you did there, something you hate abi
Why are you against voting, is it not what is mostly used to decide stuff after examining the evidence?

Didn't quite see your response at the Noetic post. What made you desert?

Krayola2:

@ Chrisbenogor

SInce the academic integrity of the Jesus seminar is what is at stake here, how do we solve this. . .hhmmmmnn.

Okay, Chrisbenogor. . .how about you look up the top universities in the world that offer religious studies, check their course descriptions of courses about Jesus, Paul and christianity in general, and find out who wrote their textbooks. I bet my two testicles 90% of them are written by members of the Jesus seminar. YOu can start at the Harvard divinity school 


then look them up on youtube, and u'll see how many things pop up trying to discredit them, and u'll hardly ever (if ever) find them make any attacks or even defend themselves.

Now ask yourself, if they are embraced by the academic community, and despised by pastors and theologians, is the question really about their academic integrity?

lol me I donot understand david. when there is a gathering of qualified dudes rather than shouting like the way we are now they vote na very simple to me.
Is there a scientific way to gather and sift opinion again?

Marlbron:

Didn't quite see your response at the Noetic post. What made you desert?

Do you still want my response?

Chrisbenogor:

Sounds wise to me, the past is loads of fun though.
@david
That was some serious copy and pasting you did there, something you hate abi
Why are you against voting, is it not what is mostly used to decide stuff after examining the evidence?

1. I posted the links. I dont know much about JS, you folks brought them into the discussion so i had to go find out who they were. turns out you both dont know much about them either.

2. Chris . . . dont insult our sensibilities here. You are a big proponent of scientific due process. Please show me ANY OTHER SCIENTIFIC process where secret balloting is the means for deciding what is scientific fact or not.
This is trying to be deceptive from you . . . where have i been against voting? When has voting been a scientific principle to decide what goes into a journal?

It is totally incredulous that you would even make such a horribly false comment.

Chrisbenogor:

lol me I donot understand david. when there is a gathering of qualified dudes rather than shouting like the way we are now they vote na very simple to me.
Is there a scientific way to gather and sift opinion again?

When was voting ever a method of scientific inquiry? 

Krayola2:

@ Chrisbenogor

SInce the academic integrity of the Jesus seminar is what is at stake here, how do we solve this. . .hhmmmmnn.

Okay, Chrisbenogor. . .how about you look up the top universities in the world that offer religious studies, check their course descriptions of courses about Jesus, Paul and christianity in general, and find out who wrote their textbooks. I bet my two testicles 90% of them are written by members of the Jesus seminar. YOu can start at the Harvard divinity school 


then look them up on youtube, and u'll see how many things pop up trying to discredit them, and u'll hardly ever (if ever) find them make any attacks or even defend themselves.

Now ask yourself, if they are embraced by the academic community, and despised by pastors and theologians, is the question really about their academic integrity?

err which "academic community" embraced them? Pls show us . . . besides their usefulness to dolts like you who trot them out to advance your godless souls . . . where are they embraced and by who?

Where are their peer-reviewed papers? THE PROOF OF THEIR BEING EMBRACED BY THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY?

Dont insult our sensibilities here pls. Seems like you're just starting out in college hence much of the nonsense you're posting.

davidylan:

When was voting ever a method of scientific inquiry? 

Emmmmm no but tell me how else they would have achieved a consensus.

This davilan is a very funny guy. We ask for you to show us where Jesus said that his crucification is paying for the sins of the world, you could not give such scripture.

You keep quoting scriptures that are irrelivant and giving them the usual interpretations that pastors give. The Truth is that the scriptures you quoted did say that Jesus's crucifications had payed for the sins of the world.


Quote from: justcool on Today at 08:08:39 PM
[Quote]
Lets look at that scripture in another Bible Transaltion

"because this is my blood of the new covenant that is being poured out for many people for the forgiveness of sins."

International Standard Version (©2008)

You see, it was King James version which Davilan quoted, that gave a misleading translation.
Of course you can see that in the international Standard Version it says "is being poured out" which is present tense. Remember at this point Jesus has not been crucified. If He was talking about the future would He use present tense? This shows you that He was talking about His words, the Truth which he brought to the world, which He was giving the world at that time. The blood being poured out is his word or the Truth which was being(present tense) poured out by his speeches.
[/Quote]

I agree with the above, depending on the transaltion you read, Jesus was speaking in the present tense. He could not be talking about His crucification which happened in the future.

davidylan:

Foul! [size=14pt]John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life[/size]

That again is FALSE theology i'm sorry. Christ didnt mean that "eating his flesh and drinking his blood" simply meant to abide in him. How do we abide in him if we are not saved by the blood in the first place?   That is what that verse was saying . . . those who are saved by the power of His death and resurrection ABIDE IN HIM . . . not the other way round.

Again stop twisting scripture, this is simple.

Again you are not making any sense. If eating His flesh and drinking His blood is not ment metaphorically, then why are you not eating Jesus flesh and drinking His blood. If it is literaly His blood that brings salvation, why didnt the apostles drink His blood. Why didnt they eat his body after they took him down from the cross? Are you telling me that He was encouraging them to be canibals?

davidylan:


John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

Dude whats your level of education? Havent you ever heard of metaphor. To lift somthing up does not mean to crucifiy that thing.
To lift somthing up is a metaphor for saying to  make it known or to glorify it.  Moses lifted up a snake to seen by believers, he did not crucify the snake. The same way shall the son of man be lifted up(Make known to the world, glorify, or put on a pedestal) so that the world could see Him.
I dont know where you see crucification paying for the sins of the world in this clear scripture.
Dude open your eyes. Dont see through the eyes of your pastors!!! Open your own eyes.

Chrisbenogor:

Emmmmm no but tell me how else they would have achieved a consensus.

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 i can now put up my project to a vote and complete my thesis in 2 weeks?

seeklove:

This davilan is a very funny guy. We ask for you to show us where Jesus said that his crucification is paying for the sins of the world, you could not give such scripture.

I already did, you're not interested in them. Go back and read them . . . when i provide you claim i'm misrepresenting the scriptures since it doesnt appeal to your own biased opinion

seeklove:

You keep quoting scriptures that are irrelivant and giving them the usual interpretations that pastors give. The Truth is that the scriptures you quoted did say that Jesus's crucifications had payed for the sins of the world.

i.e. i keep quoting scriptures that put your drivel in the thrashcan. No wonder justcool too wouldnt want to read Hebrews.

seeklove:

I agree with the above, depending on the transaltion you read, Jesus was speaking in the present tense. He could not be talking about His crucification which happened in the future.

Again this is bogus . . . trying to use "translations" to force your own opinion makes no sense. That would mean EVERY SINGLE scripture i quoted that supports the power in the blood is a translation error too?

seeklove:

Again you are not making any sense. If eating His flesh and drinking His blood is not ment metaphorically, then why are you not eating Jesus flesh and drinking His blood. If it is literaly His blood that brings salvation, why didnt the apostles drink His blood. Why didnt they eat his body after they took him down from the cross? Are you telling me that He was encouraging them to be canibals?

Actually you're describing yourself . . . what you're doing is NOT looking at the scriptures objectively but trying to use your established bias to force a different interpretation. The body and blood was meant as an example of His death. That is why we celebrate communion in churches today! It is a commemoration of his death . . . 1 corinthians 11 explains it . . . but of course that is also irrelevant since it debunks your nonsense.

seeklove:

Dude whats your level of education?

By the end of the yr i'd be a phD . . . dude dont assume because i argue with your retards here we are on the same plane.
When you have achieved that then you can query my level of education again.

seeklove:

Havent you ever heard of metaphor. To lift somthing up does not mean to crucifiy that thing.
To lift somthing up is a metaphor for saying to  make it known or to glorify it.  Moses lifted up a snake to seen by believers, he did not crucify the snake. The same shall the son of man be lifted up(Make known to the world, glorify, or put on a pedestal) so that the world could see Him.
I dont know where you see crucification paying for the sins of the world in this clear scripture.
Dude open your eyes. Dont see through the eyes of your pastors!!! Open your own eyes.

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?

You just get a sick feeling reading the rubbish these folks put out in defence of the indefensible.

Quote from: davidylan on Today at 08:21:08 PM
[Quote]
Foul! John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life
[/Quote]
Even 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!