Oh, Fox News, you've done it again...

Eilian

Byrnzie wrote:

Eilian wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

It's interesting that you should quote a man that has written a book making the argument FOR the historical Jesus in bolstering your argument AGAINST.

I sympathise with your frustration at people who claim the existence of non-scriptural evidence for Christ without being able to cite any, but...

Be careful in your quote mining.

Interesting. Did he claim that belief in an historical Jesus was a matter of faith? If not, then what does he base his belief on?

Not at all, he presents a very lucid, very well informed, scholarly account. He makes it plain that he's referring to nothing more than a Jewish preacher, rather than the son of God. But, that a real man fuelled the mechanics and growth of the faith - this isn't really a radical idea, look up AJ Miller in Australia to see it happen in real time.

You clearly respect the man's credentials as I do, and I feel as though I'd be doing him an injustice in trying to summarise his analysis of ancient texts and the historical context that surrounds them.

I'm only half way through the book as we speak, but highly recommend - Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. Bart D. Erhman.

mikepegg44

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Guitar92player wrote:

C'mon, this isn't a thread about attacking people's beliefs. Let's be respectful.

Oh please.

At what point were Christians respectful of anyone?

They think their group delusion, made up fairy tales should be the basis for laws in the US. The rest of us think they should be basis for getting thrown in the loony bin where they belong.

I know many respectful christians, and some shitty ones too. Certainly cannot say they all are one way or another... I wonder if the brush used to paint all christians is as big as the ones morons (some of them claiming christianity) use to paint the LBGT community, or the african americans, or immigrants, or...As a fun experiment, someone should use the exact same quote above but replace Christian with Muslim or immigrant and see what happens next...(hint, it has happened in other threads and it wasn't pretty)

On topic, this is a typical tactic used in today's "media" for point/counter-point discussion. If someone can't offer legitimate criticisms of arguments, often they simply attack the source and search for some perceived bias. Ironically, Fox does it all the time, and it is what most people do to fox news articles/stories/fictitious non-sense because of their well earned reputation for shitty reporting. Is there a better example of a pot calling a kettle black?

Kat

Guitar92player wrote:

...they really know how to take an interview and take it the wrong direction.

http://news.yahoo.com/why-fox-news-scan ... 02800.html

They made too much of a big deal out of his religion than actually talk about his book.


Whole interview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YY92TV4_Wc0

It was certainly a different approach to an interview with the author but good that he wouldn't allow himself to be characterized in one particular way. I saw him interviewed on The Daily Show by John Oliver and I don't remember hearing that he was a Muslim at all. It was all about the book as far as I recall.

Guitar92player

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Guitar92player wrote:

C'mon, this isn't a thread about attacking people's beliefs. Let's be respectful.

Oh please.

At what point were Christians respectful of anyone?

They think their group delusion, made up fairy tales should be the basis for laws in the US. The rest of us think they should be basis for getting thrown in the loony bin where they belong.

You can't characterize all Christians just because of what the extremist ones are like. If you do then you should be locked up in a looney bin.

I am a Catholic but I believe we shouldn't mix religion with politics. So it looks like your assumption is wrong. :roll:

Guitar92player

Byrnzie wrote:

otter wrote:

This shit happened 2000 years ago for crying out loud.

So what? Egyptian history stretches back 6000 years, along with Chinese history, and there's an abundance of written information, and archeological evidence, for both. There's also ample historical evidence shedding light on Greek and Roman times. You think there's any doubt on the existence of Caesar, or Socrates and Plato? No, because there's plenty of historical evidence to support the historicity of their lives. Whereas in the case of Jesus - whose supposedly the most important and amazing person who ever walked the Earth - there's none. Nada. Zilch.

otter wrote:

I can't imagine being so naive and arrogant to actually think I can out-wit history.

It's not history, because the Bible is a religious book, not an historical book. And no contemporary evidence from the period exists to prove that he ever actually lived, despite numerous histories of the period written at the time he was supposedly alive. There's no mention of him until at least 80 years after he was alleged to have died (in the work of Tacitus), and even that mention of him is hearsay, and comes from a book produced in the 11th century, which leads to the possibility that it was, like the mention of Jesus in the histories of Josephus, a later interpolation by Church scribes desperate to prove that he actually lived. There's also no archeological evidence that he existed.

This source isn't the best, but most links people post on this site are not that great. :roll:
http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/josephus.html

Also, the letters written by Paul included in the gospel are seen as genuine.

Also, why would anyone really write about Jesus then? During that time they just saw him as a phony man so they didn't think he was important. The reason he was written about long after his death is because of his followers and his popularity as Christianity grew.

chadwick

what a terrible interview. solid elephant shit = fox news. this lady here has no brain

mikepegg44

chadwick wrote:

what a terrible interview. solid elephant shit = fox news. this lady here has no brain

solid elephant shit has an actual purpose

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1oH5_hi7cw

fox news on the other hand...still waiting to find a purpose

polaris_x

the sad part is that despite the backlash ... this piece did what it was supposed to do ... divide and polarize ... and make people dumber than they already are ...

chadwick

polaris_x wrote:

the sad part is that despite the backlash ... this piece did what it was supposed to do ... divide and polarize ... and make people dumber than they already are ...

it divides ppl? a huge number of folks w/ 14 brain cells already dislike fox news. what is being divided?

polaris_x

chadwick wrote:

it divides ppl? a huge number of folks w/ 14 brain cells already dislike fox news. what is being divided?

people who watch fox news typically slant to their biases ... so, this interview was basically orchestrated to help divide and polarize people of different faiths ... that muslim people have radical views ... and that they are the enemy of christianity ...

chadwick

if that's the case then i am sorry but fox news supporters are [rude word removed by Admin]

Guitar92player

polaris_x wrote:

chadwick wrote:

it divides ppl? a huge number of folks w/ 14 brain cells already dislike fox news. what is being divided?

people who watch fox news typically slant to their biases ... so, this interview was basically orchestrated to help divide and polarize people of different faiths ... that muslim people have radical views ... and that they are the enemy of christianity ...

That is pretty much what Fox News does. They obviously lean right (despite saying they are not) and they try and sell their agenda the same MSNBC does for the left.

Another reason I will never put a title on me and will have whatever views I want.

polaris_x

Guitar92player wrote:

That is pretty much what Fox News does. They obviously lean right (despite saying they are not) and they try and sell their agenda the same MSNBC does for the left.

Another reason I will never put a title on me and will have whatever views I want.

although i mostly agree with you ... as a leftist (proud and open) - i take offense that msnbc is considered left ... they would be centrist at best imo ...

Guitar92player

polaris_x wrote:

Guitar92player wrote:

That is pretty much what Fox News does. They obviously lean right (despite saying they are not) and they try and sell their agenda the same MSNBC does for the left.

Another reason I will never put a title on me and will have whatever views I want.

although i mostly agree with you ... as a leftist (proud and open) - i take offense that msnbc is considered left ... they would be centrist at best imo ...

I don't hear as much crap from MSNBC as I do Fox News, but they are openly left (at least they admit it) but they do have a bias as much as Fox News, but I haven't many damning things from them as Fox News.

Godfather.

President Obama doubled down Tuesday on his claim that the Keystone XL oil pipeline would create just a handful of jobs, despite being hammered by Republicans and fact-checkers alike for the claim.

The president addressed Keystone during a speech in Chattanooga, Tenn., as he challenged Republicans to come up with new jobs proposals.

"They keep on talking about this -- an oil pipeline coming down from Canada that's estimated to create about 50 permanent jobs. That's not a jobs plan," Obama said.

In citing the 50-jobs number, though, the president was using the smallest possible number attached to the pipeline project. The estimate he used likely refers to a State Department finding that -- after the pipeline is built -- it would take roughly 50 people to maintain it.

But the comment ignores the rest of the State Department report that estimates the project would create nearly 4,000 annual construction jobs -- and potentially "support" an annual 42,000 jobs.

Obama similarly ignored those findings during an interview he gave recently to The New York Times. In the interview, Obama said the project would create roughly 2,000 construction jobs and maybe 100 additional jobs after that -- calling it a "blip relative to the need."

As FoxNews.com reported on Monday, Obama appeared to eschew the higher job-creation estimate from his own State Department, opting instead to use the numbers from a 2011 Cornell University Global Labor Institute study, which opposes construction of the crude-oil pipeline.

A Washington Post fact-check column on Tuesday questioned why the administration would ignore its own numbers.

"Ordinarily, we would expect the president to cite an estimate from his own State Department, rather than a think tank opposed to the project," The Post story said.

The paper acknowledged that much of the estimating is "guess work" that includes speculation about such "spinoff" jobs as suppliers.

"But the president shouldn't pick and choose how he cites job-creation numbers. Perhaps he is tipping his hand on what he secretly thinks of the Keystone XL by citing a low-ball figure, generated by the pipeline's opponents, but he should stick to using the official government estimate," the fact-check column concluded.

The Post suggests that Obama should perhaps estimate the job-creation numbers just as he did when touting his stimulus plan. The column gave the president's claim two "Pinocchios" -- out of four on the paper's fact-check scale.

Republicans were more critical of the claim.

"A president disparaging private-sector jobs while backstage at a jobs rally is beyond belief," Michigan Republican Rep. Fred Upton, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, told FoxNews.com. "The president's own State Department reported that Keystone would support upwards of 40,000 jobs. In this economy, any source of private job creation should be welcomed with open arms. After nearly five years and 15,500 pages of review, there is no reason to delay these jobs another day. Republicans, Democrats, leading unions, and job creators all agree, it's time to start building."

Another fact-check site -- one tied to the industry -- also blasted Obama's original comments. A post on the Oil Sands Fact Check blog cited the State Department's total estimates and wrote: "Um ... that's a little more than a blip. President Obama also could have consulted the many labor union members across the country who need those jobs and have held rallies in support of Keystone XL across the nation."



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07 ... z2aZB6AaqS

chad calling people stupid for supporting Fox is ...shall we say..not nice and who supports any news station ? I read many news sources does that mean I support the views of every news outlet I read ?
and besides this whole anti fox thing is mostly brought up by people that voted for obama...I should believe yours/their opinion of a news station ?????? please the proof is in the pudding


Godfather.

Guitar92player

Godfather. wrote:

this whole anti fox thing is mostly brought up by people that voted for obama...I should believe yours/their opinion of a news station ?????? please the proof is in the pudding


Godfather.

Your claim is just as "not nice" as what Chad said. :roll:

I know many people who voted for Romney and hate Fox News.

chadwick

yes, godfather, proof is in the pudding

foxnews channel is out of control & so insane that i'd rather smash my face in a bench vice than watch a full hour of sean hannity & alan combs. are they known as the beltway boys or is that some other clowns?

don't be hurt, godfather, you're stronger than that. yes i know foxnews is your source for the latest in worldwide news. i gotta admit, many of those anchor broads got some nice ass legs. truthfully, godfather, those assholes at foxnews are a uppity bunch not worth a bucket of donkey urine or an entire dog turd pile

these fuckers at foxnews are better than you or i, they are holier than thou & they crave heavy duty dollars & beg for yet another jerk off in office

i've never in all my life wanted to slap silly so many news anchors. the list of dipshit pansy ass spoiled little moma's boys is through the giant ceiling

brian kilmeade... are you fucking serious? o'reily? pierce morgan, foreal? glenn beck? glenn beck? glenn beck? this fucking glenn beck guy sends a chill up my spine & up my ass 6 ways from sunday. why can't he have a black eye or 7 more often? what a fucking clown this fucking guy

http://youtu.be/_iFzHsOacVg
courtney friel's barbie closet. a true journalist im sure

edit.
i'm sorry for earlier saying anyone who watches foxnews is stupid. that wasn't polite of me.

Guitar92player

chadwick wrote:

yes, godfather, proof is in the pudding



brian kilmeade... are you fucking serious? o'reily? pierce morgan, foreal? glenn beck? glenn beck? glenn beck? this fucking glenn beck guy sends a chill up my spine & up my ass 6 ways from sunday. why can't he have a black eye or 7 more often? what a fucking clown this fucking guy

Pierce Morgan? You mean Piers Morgan? If so, he is CNN.

Byrnzie

Guitar92player wrote:

Also, the letters written by Paul included in the gospel are seen as genuine.

The Gospels were written between 50-60 years after Jesus's supposed death. They are not evidence. Also, the letters of Paul do not speak of a historical Jesus at all, but only of a mystical dying and resurrecting Christ.

Guitar92player

Byrnzie wrote:

Guitar92player wrote:

Also, the letters written by Paul included in the gospel are seen as genuine.

The Gospels were written between 50-60 years after Jesus's supposed death. They are not evidence. Also, the letters of Paul do not speak of a historical Jesus at all, but only of a mystical dying and resurrecting Christ.

Many letters in it, by Paul, were written about 20 years after Jesus' death. Granted not all letters by him are genuine, but there are many that are definitely written by him.

Know this, you will never get your written proof, other than Paul, when it comes to historical Jesus or anyone tied to him. Like I said earlier, there are probably no documents on him or the apostles because to the Romans and others they were not seen as important or worthy people to write about. Many of the stories of the gospels and the people involved were orally passed down from generation to generation and were eventually written about when the time was right. You and I both know Christians were tortured and killed the few hundred years after Jesus' death, so why would they hold on to any documents? If there were, they were destroyed. How Paul's survived I do not know.

You cannot always get physical proof.