Barry, it’s impossible to ignore the ongoing discussion and renewed calls from members of Congress to bring back the Fairness Doctrine or what many are saying will be legislation that will go by a different name.
As we’ve discussed before , the Fairness Doctrine is an antiquated Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rule dating back to the 1940s that was abandoned in 1987 during the Reagan administration.
In theory, the Fairness Doctrine was designed to enhance political discourse by requiring television and radio broadcast stations to “cover vitally important controversial issues of interest in their communities” and “provide a reasonable opportunity for the presentation of contrasting viewpoints on those controversial issues of public importance.” In re Complaint of Syracuse Peace Council Against Television Station WTVH Syracuse, New York, 2 F.C.C.R. 5043 (1987).
In practice, however, the Fairness Doctrine stifled political debate and forced broadcasters to subsidize unpopular programs and significantly limit their coverage of controversial topics. After nearly four decades of experience in applying the Fairness Doctrine, the FCC concluded in August 1987 that “the fairness doctrine contravenes the First Amendment and thereby disserves the public interest.”
There’s a new flurry of activity in Congress – seeking to bring back this troubling measure or something like it. And, in our analysis , such a move would be an unconstitutional attempt to stifle free speech.
White House Senior Advisor David Axelrod refused to rule out the possibility that the Fairness Doctrine would make a comeback. In an interview with one of the Sunday news programs, he said he would leave that issue to incoming FCC Commissioner Julius Genachowski to discuss with President Obama.
And, now comes a report that there are ongoing discussions about this very topic on Capitol Hill. Consider this from a news report just out today:
“Senior FCC staff working for acting Federal Communications Commissioner Michael Copps held meetings last week with policy and legislative advisers to House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman to discuss ways the committee can create openings for the FCC to put in place a form of the “Fairness Doctrine” without actually calling it such.”
Barry, the American people understand what’s taking place. In a new poll just released, just 38% of Americans support government-mandated speech on radio – a sharp decline of nearly 10 points since the last survey taken in August. While 47% of Americans oppose government-imposed speech on radio stations, 65% of Americans believe it is likely that the Democrat-controlled Congress will reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.
We have seen repeated efforts to bring back this troubling regulatory measure. A 2005 bill sought to reimpose the Fairness Doctrine by requiring broadcasters to “afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance” in a manner “consistent with the rules and policies of the Commission in effect on January 1, 1987.” H.R. 3302, 109th Cong., 1st Sess., July 14, 2005.
The legislator who introduced that measure in 2005 now says he plans to reintroduce it in this session of Congress. Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D – NY) plans to reintroduce his 2005 bill. “We’re going to focus attention on [the Fairness Doctrine] and see what happens,” Hinchey told an Ohio newspaper.
And, now, there’s a new wave of lawmakers who seem very intent on trying to bring this regulatory measure back. But this time, there’s talk of calling it something else. In recent weeks, a number of lawmakers - including Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) – expressed support for this type of legislation.
Sen. Harkin told a radio show that “we gotta get the Fairness Doctrine back in law again.”
And this from Sen. Stabenow in a recent interview: “I think it’s absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it’s called the Fairness Standard, whether it’s called something else – I absolutely think it’s time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves.”
Barry, I know you don’t think this is a big deal. But, it’s hard to ignore the continued pleas from those who keep talking about bringing back regulation aimed at controlling conservative – including Christian – speech.
Whether you call it the “Fairness Doctrine” or something else, this is a road that President Obama and Congress should not go down.
posted February 16, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Won’t get past SCOTUS.
posted February 16, 2009 at 5:54 pm
SCOTUS will say that, although they’re public airwaves, you cannot balance out STREAM OF CONSCIOUSNESS EXPRESSIONS which is what talk radio is all about. You would not be able to balance out Stream of consciousness expressions merely by a stopwatch, and the Libs aren’t claiming that they are denied time, anyway. They claim that they are denied content. Content, of course, goes to stream of consciousness expression, in this case, and, as I say, it will be impossible to monitor and to calculate a balance of stream of consciousness expression.
In any case, the “Fairless Doctrine” will run up against the First Amendment in that it will require one point of view to be substituted for another point of view that the station owner wishes to express. That means that the conservative host will have to trim his speech, tailor his Right in order to accommodate an invading viewpoint with which the station owner does not agree, though he allows it in the form of a minor role callers play. This would be an imposition on the First Amendment of the conservative host.
SCOTUS will say that this issue is best worked out in the marketplace, and the Court will say that it will not substitute its views for the views of a free marketplace. It will say that it will not be a referee between opposing, political viewpoints, that everyone has the opportunity to go into business, build a station and compete on the open, free market. It will say that, just because the members of one side cannot compete, doesn’t mean that they get to impose their political Will on the conservative host and the owner of that station.
posted February 16, 2009 at 11:17 pm
Dear Mr. Incredible,
I believe that what we can expect from this Administration is force. They don’t care about the will nor free speech of the public majority. They know that they’re in the minority because Rush has the most popular radio show in the entire country. Compared to what we’ve seen so far, they do not abide by the Constitution nor free speech. They claim that Liberal radio shows are being “shut-down” all over the country. The reason that they are taken off the air is because there is no audience for them, and businesses don’t want to place ads on failing shows. So, the Obama Administration is going to “force us” to listen to their radical Socialist ideas. Don’t put it past them for a minute. This is becoming a dictatorship really quick.
posted February 17, 2009 at 12:14 am
The Fairness Doctrine has no place in our First Amendment regime. It puts the head of the camel inside the tent and enables administration after administration to toy with TV or radio in order to serve its sordid or its benevolent ends.
posted February 17, 2009 at 12:40 am
I heard creationist lunatic Ken Ham on the radio today. A child could hear some of the absurd science bashing claims this ingrate makes and actually believe it and be scarred forever. Ham knew he couldn’t get away with his particular brand of ignorance in Australia so he came to America where people can make wildly false claims and state them as fact in our media without being held accountable for them. I don’t care about the Fairness Doctrine as long as we ban Christian radio and television forever. It’s much worse than pornography.
posted February 17, 2009 at 1:04 am
We don’t need a comeback of the Fairness Doctrine. What we need is a version of factcheck.org. As each commentator’s statements are compared to the truth, the volume is automatically adjusted accordingly. The whole truth gets heard at the loudest volume, while the outright lies are completely muted. Then Laura wouldn’t have to worry about the will of the majority being stifled and Rush and Fox so-called News will become a self-eliminating entities…
posted February 17, 2009 at 4:01 am
This comment concerns the fairness doctrine. @ first I was on board with the concept of doing away with it, but as I listen to the show (aclj) and the more I listen I am convinced that the fairness doctrine maybe whats needed. It sounds to me as though you are trying to institute silenecy of those whom oppose your views. I’ve notice on numerous occasions when a caller would disagree with your opinion, how convenient it is for you to drop that call, or much worst, talking over them cutting their opinion short, knowing what that caller is about to say when in reality you don’t. You play up your show and call it Christian talk when in reality sounds like the work of tbe devil. The more I listen to your show the more I want to write that christian broadcast network and ask them how can your show be allowed to air under the guise of conserative christian talk, when to me it sounds like satan blabble. Don’t get it twisted some of your topics are worth fighting for (ie students allowed to pray, Chaplains allow to pray according to their faith) but the bashing of the new admin as if the reason we are in this crisis should fall on the shoulders of this admin. I am not going to front and say that I am well verse in the bible but I do know that alot of your opinions are not of a christian nature tone. and with that I say bring on the fairness doc, there should be more fairness and opposing thoughts allowed. In case you forgot, this is America free speech is allowed and should not be stiffen. Those who fear opposing views from theirs surely must have something to hide.
posted February 17, 2009 at 5:49 am
Jay thank you so much for you work.
I have heard verry littel of this new stimulas package I haven’t read it, but I am nervous of how will be used by the Demicrats.
1st I have heard in the radio news, somthing about no money can be received and used in the same place religous meetings are going on.
2nd now suposidly most americans are going to be receiving some money even if it is only $13.
is there a way to reject it and not be penalized?
is this going to be anoter misconstrued law — to be twisted the same way the lefty’s do with separation of church and state?
or is it BOLDLY in are face
Do you think they will try to use this as a new constitututional amendment.
I trust your oppinion, hope to hear you reply.
posted February 17, 2009 at 9:35 am
Dear Laura,
Please explain to us exactly how Obama and his party are in the minority when overwhelming majorities of Americans placed him in the White House and more Democrats in the House and Senate? I’m not sure your math is adding up there.
posted February 17, 2009 at 11:22 am
DSJulian, I believe you are on to something!
I suppose the right doesn’t want the Fairness Doctrine because it would cramp their style on the radio. But who listens to radio any more?
Perhaps a Fairness Doctrine would put a stop to the racist bigotry that’s out there. It seems every right wing nut gets a hearing, including some Aryan Skinhead and KKK types. I’m particularly concerned with the anti-immigrant sentiments I’m hearing about of late, and don’t try to tell me that Rush isn’t right in there bashing anyone who comes into this country from south of the border (although nothing at all is said about the immigrants from Nova Scotia).
I do appreciate the First Amendment, but with every right comes a responsibility, and responsibilities are what are being ignored by some of these jerks. Maybe we do need a Fairness Amendment, if for no other reason than to make us more civil and truer to the founders’ hopes for the nation.
posted February 17, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Mary-Lee,
My question is: Where does a law like this stop?
Anyone at anytime can find something distasteful about a show on the radio or other media. Electronic devices come equipped with a power switch for a reason.
With something like the Fairness Doctrine, all it takes is a significant majority of people who find a certain thing distasteful to be in power to stifle a topic or belief. The KKK, the Aryan Nation, the Nation of Islam, and any other extremist organization are way out of line in my own opinion. That does not, however, give me or the US government the right to tell them what to say or think. I can’t believe that legislation like this is even being considered in a country with “freedom of speech”.
posted February 17, 2009 at 8:55 pm
==Please explain to us exactly how Obama and his party are in the minority when overwhelming majorities of Americans placed him in the White House and more Democrats in the House and Senate…==
Didn’t the majority vote in slavery? Don’t those who claim to be homosexual say that majorities can be wrong?
posted February 17, 2009 at 11:55 pm
Lost Left Coaster
February 17, 2009 9:35 AM
Dear Laura,
Please explain to us exactly how Obama and his party are in the minority when overwhelming majorities of Americans placed him in the White House and more Democrats in the House and Senate? I’m not sure your math is adding up there.
Overwhelming majorities put Obama in the White House mostly, I believe because he is so charismatic and inspiring (oratorically). All these things made a sharp contrast to the uninspiring Bush Administration. Obama really knows how to rally the people with rhetoric. However, no one listend (hardly anyone I know) to the content of his speach, including one of my friends. People wanted a savior-like, good-looking, young-Kennedy-ish icon. He could have said that he was the Anti-Christ and would still have been elected. Now, the majority of the people are crying fowl because he is actually going through with what he said he would do. No one believed that he would actually do the radical (to a democracy) things that he claimed. Now, reality sets in. Perhaps he is right about “the masses.”
posted February 18, 2009 at 2:22 am
“His majesty is not disposed to rest the security of his state upon the stupidity of his subjects.” – said about Frederick the Great
posted February 18, 2009 at 3:16 am
I’m sick of the debate, no minds are changed, ever.
What this country needs is a new civil war and all the blood that goes with it so the stupidity can have a price tag attached.
posted February 18, 2009 at 5:53 am
==What this country needs is a new civil war …==
That’s comin’. Dunno when. But it’s comin’.
posted February 18, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Jeremy, when are the people of the United States going to realize that the Aryan Skinheads and the KKK are our enemies? Just how many more bombings do there need to be, or how many more killings of African Americans, or how many more synagogue desecrations? You worry about how far this might go. I worry that it won’t go far enough.
posted February 18, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Boris: I don’t care about the Fairness Doctrine as long as we ban Christian radio and television forever.
What is it you have against Christianity, or Jesus Christ?
posted February 19, 2009 at 12:08 am
Liberal politicians need a doctrine UGENTLY!
After this STIMULUS PACKAGE reaks havoc upon our nation because it is simply a SPECIAL INTEREST PACKAGE payback for democratic elections and we voters shake ourselves and COME TO OUR SENSES…it may be 20 YEARS BEFORE ANOTHER DEMOCRATIC CONTROLLED CONGRESS is voted in.
OBamma and Pelosi have already shown their true spirits after pushing abortion as soon as they took the White House.
They pushed the 100 page Stimulus package on the Senate and told them they didn’t have time to read it all it is too important to not take action right now..sign! sign! sign!!!!
Then Mr Obamma went on a vacation and took 3 days to sign it! ???
Are we tired of the lies yet???
Stimulus = hyperinflation/ Pro Choice = DEATH / Fairness = Censorship
O’Bamma Appointees = Tax Evasion & withdrawal of appointment = LAME DUCK
Fairness Doctrine = Many Impeachments & Replacements next election cycle
Pro Abort vote = Early Retirement From Political life
Enough Rights Taken Away! Not One MOre!
posted February 19, 2009 at 10:37 am
==Boris: I don’t care about the Fairness Doctrine as long as we ban Christian radio and television forever.
What is it you have against Christianity, or Jesus Christ?==
All you’re going to get from him is the same old atheist PR.
posted February 19, 2009 at 10:43 am
==I don’t care about the Fairness Doctrine as long as we ban Christian radio and television forever.==
Won’t happen.
However, you have the ability to bar it and banish it from your own mind. You can delete those channels from your teevee set. You can go right past them on your radio; just don’t preset them, and VOILÀ!no more Christian radio and teevee in YOUR world.
We understand, however, that you wanna eliminate Christian radio and teevee for everybody else who wants them. Where did you get your training, the Soviet Union, Cuba, China, or North Korea?
posted February 19, 2009 at 11:06 am
==I don’t care about the Fairness Doctrine as long as we ban Christian radio and television forever.==
Who’s this “we”? Lib Sturmabteilung?
posted February 19, 2009 at 11:43 am
Lib networks cannot make it in the free market, and we get proof again as another Lib network bites it:
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=89322
posted February 19, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Our founding truth: What is it you have against Christianity, or Jesus Christ?
Boris says: I don’t believe a person whose virgin birth and supposed resurrection were announced by angels, who had conversations with such beings as Satan and demons and appeared to people in visions is a historical person. I don’t believe stories that contain any kind of dialog in them are historical narratives and neither would anyone else if they just applied the same kind of literary criticism to the Bible they would any other literature. It’s only when you buy into the dogma of biblical infallibility can you believe these ridiculous stories that you would not believe if you saw them anywhere else. Therefore it is obvious to me Christianity is just as absurd and false as the rest of the religions in the world. The pie-in-the-sky promises and ludicrous claims of the Christian media preachers and apologists along with their constant threats that if people don’t believe what they are told by them they will suffer unbelievable violence in an afterlife have no place on the public airways that children may be listening to. If you people want to practice your intellectual perversions in the privacy of your own homes that’s fine. But you should not be able to get away with this nonsense in front of children or on property you don’t pay taxes on and certainly not on MY radio. Get the message?
For everyone else on this blog: Keep in mind when talking with Mr. Incredible that he believes a 500 year old man built a ship larger that the Titanic all out of wood and pitch. If you ask him how Noah got penguins, polar bears, kangaroos and Tazmanian devils on the ark he’ll give you his scientific answer; God brought the animals to Noah.
Incredible actually believes that the answer to every question on every science test should be “Because the Bible tells me so.”
posted February 19, 2009 at 1:30 pm
==I don’t believe a person whose virgin birth and supposed resurrection were announced by angels…==
They were also announced by real people.
==… who had conversations with such beings as Satan and demons…==
He had no conversations with Satan, nor demons.
==… and appeared to people in visions is a historical person.==
They saw reality.
== …if they just applied the same kind of literary criticism to the Bible they would any other literature.==
The Word of God is not just any kind of literature.
== It’s only when you buy into the dogma of biblical infallibility can you believe these ridiculous stories that you would not believe if you saw them anywhere else.==
Irrelevant.
== Therefore it is obvious to me Christianity is just as absurd and false as the rest of the religions in the world.==
The Devil says the same thing.
==The pie-in-the-sky promises and ludicrous claims of the Christian media preachers and apologists along with their constant threats that if people don’t believe what they are told by them they will suffer unbelievable violence in an afterlife have no place on the public airways that children may be listening to.==
Who says? Your bosses at the Kremlin? Pyongyang? Havana?
== If you people want to practice your intellectual perversions in the privacy of your own homes that’s fine.==
Oh, you approve, huh. Gee, thanks.
== But you should not be able to get away with this nonsense in front of children or on property you don’t pay taxes on and certainly not on MY radio.==
If you own a station, you don’t have to have one-a us on. Owners of the stations get to decide, and ratings help them decide.
==…when talking with Mr. Incredible that he believes a 500 year old man built a ship larger that the Titanic all out of wood and pitch.==
And you don’t. So what?
== If you ask him how Noah got penguins, polar bears, kangaroos and Tazmanian devils on the ark he’ll give you his scientific answer; God brought the animals to Noah.==
God says so much, and I believe Him.
==Incredible actually believes that the answer to every question on every science test should be “Because the Bible tells me so.”==
I never said that.
You like to misrepresent arguments , huh?
posted February 19, 2009 at 1:38 pm
By the way, “Boris,” you think that, instead of bashing Christians, you could stick to the subject of this thread, “The Fairless Doctrine”?
Your saying that Christian radio and teevee should be eliminated, as an enforcement element of the Fairless Doctrine, is one thing. Extending it to bash others’ beliefs is quite another.
posted February 19, 2009 at 1:43 pm
==…Mr. Incredible…believes a 500 year old man built a ship larger that the Titanic all out of wood and pitch.==
I believe God.
== If you ask him how Noah got penguins, polar bears, kangaroos and Tazmanian devils on the ark he’ll give you his scientific answer; God brought the animals to Noah.==
I believe God. I don’t care how He got them into the Ark. It’s not important.
==Incredible actually believes that the answer to every question on every science test should be “Because the Bible tells me so.”==
No, not really.
We believe in answering the questions on the test, but that God gave us the knowledge and the ability to study and torecall that knowledge for the test.
You, on the other hand, believe that you came up with it all by yourself.
posted February 19, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Incredible says: He had no conversations with Satan, nor demons.
Boris says: Obviously Incredible never read Matthew 4:1-11 where Jesus and Satan look out over the FLAT earth and see ALL the nations in the world and discuss various things. I find it fascinating that most Bible thumpers have never actually read the entire Bible or even most of it. The only way to believe the Bible is to avoid reading these passages that prove the Bible claims the earth is flat or the rest of the unscientific claims of the Bible. Incredible, I suggest you READ the Bible BEFORE you tell the rest of us what is in it and what is not.
posted February 19, 2009 at 1:55 pm
==Incredible says: He had no conversations with Satan, nor demons.
Boris says: Obviously Incredible never read Matthew 4:1-11 where Jesus and Satan look out over the FLAT earth and see ALL the nations in the world and discuss various things.===
Jesus didn’t have [filthy] conversation with the Devil. He responded to the Devil’s noise with Scripture, to the Devil’s attempts to engage Him in conversation. Thereby, He teaches us how to avoid temptations of “intellectualism.” This goes along with James 4:7 — that is, submit to God first…
== I find it fascinating that most Bible thumpers have never actually read the entire Bible or even most of it.==
I don’t read it as I do a newspaper, the way YOU do.
== Incredible, I suggest you READ the Bible BEFORE you tell the rest of us what is in it and what is not.==
Already have.
posted February 19, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Thereby, He teaches us how to avoid temptations of “intellectualism.”
Boris says: In other words don’t think, just believe. Christianity has always bashed intellectualism, free inquiry and critical thinking. My favorite defense against critical thinking in the Bible is “Only a fool says in his heart there is no God.” I agree. The intellectual says out loud it so everyone can hear.
Incredible no dice. The Bible clearly says that Jesus talked with Satan and quoting “scripture” (a nice word for lies and nonsense) is still talking. Can you just admit you are wrong for once?
posted February 19, 2009 at 2:16 pm
==In other words don’t think, just believe.==
No.
== Christianity has always bashed intellectualism, free inquiry and critical thinking.==
As Jesus taught, in Matthew 4:1-11, the thread of worldly intellectualism is that its purpose is to draw us from fellowship with God.
In fact, Isaiah 1:18 says that God wants us to reason together with Him.
== My favorite defense against critical thinking in the Bible is “Only a fool says in his heart there is no God.” I agree. The intellectual says out loud it so everyone can hear.==
And, in so doing, you make a fool of yourself.
==The Bible clearly says that Jesus talked with Satan…==
No, the Word of God does not. It would have been filthy conversation, and, elsewhere, He says that we are to avoid the enticing words of the world. James 4:7 tells us how, supported by Matthew 4:1-11.
==… Can you just admit you are wrong for once?==
Can you just admit you are wrong for once?
posted February 19, 2009 at 2:42 pm
==”He teaches us how to avoid temptations of ‘intellectualism.’”
Boris says: In other words don’t think, just believe. ==
The Word doesn’t tell us not to think, rather to be cautious when tempted by intellectualism — that is, aregument intended to try to defeat God and His Word, the kind of thing YOU’re trying to do and what the Devil tried to do with Jesus in the wilderness. Of course, Jesus didn’t comply with the temptations, vexations, incantations and enticements, and neither do I. We are wise to the devices of the Devil.
posted February 19, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Jesus never existed so he didn’t do anything.
posted February 19, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Incredible read it and weep. No one has to tell me there is no evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ. No one has ever found any and I challenge you to provide evidence that Jesus or any of his disciples actually existed. ROFL! I dare you.
posted February 19, 2009 at 3:16 pm
==Jesus never existed so he didn’t do anything. ==
A seemingly endless parade of on-scene eyewitnesses says otherwise. I believe them.
posted February 19, 2009 at 3:27 pm
==No one has to tell me there is no evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ.==
It’s a suggestion of the Devil.
== No one has ever found any…==
Yes, they have. Among on-scene eyewitness testimony.
==… and I challenge you to provide evidence that Jesus or any of his disciples actually existed.==
Great multitudes of on-scene eyewitnesses testify of it.
posted February 19, 2009 at 3:45 pm
==No one has to tell me there is no evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ.==
It’s a suggestion of the Devil. He couches his suggestions in your voice so that your inner conversation sounds like your own thinking. Then, you come here with an attitude of, “Gee, ain’t I great!” It happens to all those who don’t have God, through Christ/the Word, to protect them.
posted February 19, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Yes, they have. Among on-scene eyewitness testimony.
Boris says: Prove there are any eyewitness testimonies in the gospels. The gospels were written in the late second century. We know this because the first mention of any of them came in 180 CE. So eyewitness accounts would have been just as impossible as a woman being made form a man’s rib.
posted February 19, 2009 at 4:25 pm
==Prove there are any eyewitness testimonies in the gospels.==
They’re there for you to read. In many places, the words, “eyewitness,” and, “witness,” are used. In other places, they say they saw and heard what happened, that what they saw and heard others saw and heard, and so on.
== The gospels were written in the late second century. We know this because the first mention of any of them came in 180 CE.==
BS.
== So eyewitness accounts would have been just as impossible…==
John wrote, “The Gospel of John.” He was there with Jesus. He’s just one.
==… as a woman being made form a man’s rib.==
You’re not privy to the mysteries of God because you have turned your back on God. Therefore, you have not received what we have received:
(1Co 2:12) Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
(1Co 2:13) Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
(1Co 2:14) But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
posted February 19, 2009 at 11:07 pm
Manuscript Expert Prof. Carsten Peter Thiede MA has dated portions of Mathew of the New Testament close to 20 years of the actual time of Christ on earth.
New evidence has been introduced by re-evaluating The Magdalen Papyrus (listed as Greek 17 and p64). Reported by the LOS ANGELES 1995.
Eyewitness to Jesus:
Amazing New Manuscript Evidence about the Origin of the Gospels
by Carsten Peter Thiede and Matthew d’Ancon
The Dead Sea Scrolls have pretty much sealed the debate as to the reliability of Bible manuscript evidence. Manuscripts have been studies and found NO MAJOR changes after 1000 years of scribes making copies. The changes that are found are accepted even by critics as to make no difference in the sentences…examples of mistakes are such as a local spelling or an updated spelling of the same word.
posted February 20, 2009 at 12:57 am
Harryoutdoors,
The wishful dating of manuscripts or the fact that they were copied accurately or the number of manuscripts says nothing at all about whether the stories in them are true. The fact that they have word for word dialog in them means they are not historical narratives anyway but fictions. No history was ever written the way the Bible is. The Bible has no elements of history writing and all the elements of fiction writing. The fact also remains that there are no mentions of any gospels before Iraneus in 180 CE.
posted February 20, 2009 at 11:19 pm
Boris,
You are living proof the fairness doctrine is a waste of time!
Ever heard of the LATIN VULGATE? The old one is a translation of the Old and New Testament into latin 157 AD…Scholars agree this was translated FROM ARAMAIC and HEBREW! This translation proves there were OLDER MANUSCRIPTS it was translated from AND from the ORIGINAL LANGUAGES…so, put to bed your 180CE ancient argument please.
Older still are other manuscripts such as:
P52, a papyrus fragment from a codex (c. 90-160), one of the earliest known New Testament manuscripts.
a fragment of a papyrus codex containing John xviii. 31-33, 37 f, now in the John Rylands Library, Manchester, dated on palaeographical grounds around AD 130…
Unfairness proponents want to jam the airwaves with ridiculous arguments while WE PAY THE COSTS OF YOUR REBUTTAL TIME…WON’T HAPPEN!
posted February 20, 2009 at 11:26 pm
Remember your history? Jesus Christ is real…own it!
Flavius Josephus (c. 37–c. 100), a Jew and Roman citizen who worked under the patronage of the Flavians, wrote the Antiquities of the Jews in 93 C.E.. In these works, Jesus is mentioned twice. The one directly concerning Jesus has come to be known as the Testimonium Flavianum.
Pliny the Younger, the provincial governor of Pontus and Bithynia, wrote to Emperor Trajan c. 112 concerning how to deal with Christians, who refused to worship the emperor, and instead worshiped “Christus”.
posted February 20, 2009 at 11:34 pm
Boris,
I posted the above LATIN VULGATE info…forgot to sign it…just so you know who to address all your WELL DOCUMENTED REBUTTALS to.
harry
posted February 21, 2009 at 4:19 am
Anyone can go online to see the online copy of the Vulgate where it says: “This is the Latin Bible, or ‘Vulgate’. Translated from the Hebrew and Aramaic by Jerome between 382 and 405 CE, this text became knowns as the ‘versio vulgata’, which means ‘common translation’. ‘Vulgate’ should not to be confused with the term ‘vulgar’, which has taken on a divergent meaning in modern English.” You’re off by a few hundred years there. Why would you make such a false statement when you KNOW people can easily check this out?
“Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works; a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”
Such is the celebrated reference to Christ in Josephus. A more brazen forgery was never perpetrated. For more than two hundred years, the Christian Fathers who were familiar with the works of Josephus knew nothing of this passage. Had the passage been in the works of Josephus which they knew, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen an Clement of Alexandria would have been eager to hurl it at their Jewish opponents in their many controversies. But it did not exist. Indeed, Origen, who knew his Josephus well, expressly affirmed that that writer had not acknowledged Christ. This passage first appeared in the writings of the Christian Father Eusebius, the first historian of Christianity, early in the fourth century; and it is believed that he was its author. Eusebius, who not only advocated fraud in the interest of the faith, but who is know to have tampered with passages in the works of Josephus and several other writers, introduces this passage in his “Evangelical Demonstration,” (Book III., p.124), in these words: “Certainly the attestations I have already produced concerning our Savior may be sufficient. However, it may not be amiss, if, over and above, we make use of Josephus the Jew for a further witness.”
Everything demonstrates the spurious character of the passage. It is written in the style of Eusebius, and not in the style of Josephus. Josephus was a voluminous writer. He wrote extensively about men of minor importance. The brevity of this reference to Christ is, therefore, a strong argument for its falsity. This passage interrupts the narrative. It has nothing to do with what precedes or what follows it; and its position clearly shows that the text of the historian has been separated by a later hand to give it room. Josephus was a Jew–a priest of the religion of Moses. This passage makes him acknowledge the divinity, the miracles, and the resurrection of Christ–that is to say, it makes an orthodox Jew talk like a believing Christian! Josephus could not possibly have written these words without being logically compelled to embrace Christianity. All the arguments of history and of reason unite in the conclusive proof that the passage is an unblushing forgery.
For these reasons every honest Christian scholar has abandoned it as an interpolation. Dean Milman says: “It is interpolated with many additional clauses.” Dean Farrar, writing in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, says: “That Josephus wrote the whole passage as it now stands no sane critic can believe.” Bishop Warburton denounced it as “a rank forgery and a very stupid one, too.” Chambers’ Encyclopaedia says: “The famous passage of Josephus is generally conceded to be an interpolation.” –Marshall J. Gauvin
posted February 21, 2009 at 5:56 pm
AWWWWW Your Google Tool Must Be Broken!
There is another LATIN VULGATE Boris…the old one!
Once again,your atheistic eyes see only what they want to see…
You went for the OBVIOUS Latin vulgate of Jerome because THAT SUITS YOUR NEEDS and boosts your empty argument.
Jerome compiled his Latin Vulgate and used the earlier ITALA VULGATE as reference.
The Itala Vulgate 157 AD or also called the Old Latin Vulgate is a translation from other languages such as Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew.
If this vulgate or Bible exhisted 157 AD and it is a TRANSLATION = there were EARLIER MANUSCRIPTS around to get the translation..so, do your homework before you accuse someone of making up something this important.
This is a great example of LIBERAL EXOGESES and cherry picking historical events and documents.
posted February 21, 2009 at 7:23 pm
Harry said: If this vulgate or Bible exhisted 157 AD and it is a TRANSLATION = there were EARLIER MANUSCRIPTS around to get the translation
Boris says: “If.” Where are you getting your information? This information that no one on Earth has ever seen or heard of before. ROFL! I can’t wait to see this!
posted February 22, 2009 at 5:11 am
Boris, are you joking? (HINT: Say “yes” and save face!…say you are serious and you’ll never be taken seriously again!)
The Old Latin
Itala 157
Bruce M. Metzger admits it was not the Received Text but instead Jerome used the Alexandrian Greek for the Latin Vulgate (382-400) of the Catholic Church. Jerome had enmity of the Received text, the Greek Vulgate. The Itala Vulgate (157), also sometimes referred to as the Old Latin Vulgate, was based on the Greek Vulgate or Received Text.
The Itala Vulgate 157 AD or the Old Latin Vulgate is the earliest collection of scripture translation from greek manuscripts
The Vulgate was intended to replace the Old Latin version (the “Itala”),
http://www.encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Vulgate
Greek Vulgate or Received Text
Itala Vulgate mentioned by St. Augustine in his De Doctrina Christiana
The Diatesseron was written by Tatian by weaving the 4 canonical Gospels together into a coherent and continuous accountWhile there, he composed the Diatesseron about 150 CE
http://www.ntcanon.org/Peshitta.shtml
EVEN EARLIER MANUSCRIPTS
150 AD “Peshitta”
Almost all Syriac scholars agree that the Peshitta gospels are translations of the Greek originals. Wikipedia.
userpages.bright.net/~bkrajcik/itala157.htm
Gospel of Saint John, written using the Coptic language, which was found in Upper Egypt and can be dated to the first half of the second century
http://www.coptic.net/EncyclopediaCoptica/
posted February 22, 2009 at 5:25 am
That last YOUR NAME was me…
I lost my name…Congress lost their minds!
posted February 22, 2009 at 11:25 am
Bible believers are funny. First Bruce Metzger is NOT a contemporary witness to anything and FYI the Diatesseron is in Greek, NOT Latin and there are no mentions of it in the second century! ROFL!
There is not the smallest fragment of trustworthy evidence to show that any of the Gospels were in existence, in their present form, earlier than a hundred years after the time at which Christ is supposed to have died. Christian scholars, having no reliable means by which to fix the date of their composition, assign them to as early an age as their calculations and their guesses will allow; but the dates thus arrived at are far removed from the age of Christ or his apostles. We are told that Mark was written some time after the year 70, Luke about 110, Matthew about 130, and John not earlier than 140 A.D. Let me impress upon you that these dates are conjectural, and that they are made as early as possible. The first historical mention of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, was made by the Christian Father, St. Irenaeus, about the year 190 A.D. The only earlier mention of any of the Gospels was made by Theopholis of Antioch, who mentioned the Gospel of John in 180 A.D.
There is absolutely nothing to show that these Gospels–the only sources of authority as to the existence of Christ–were written until a hundred and fifty years after the events they pretend to describe. Walter R. Cassels, the learned author of “Supernatural Religion,” one of the greatest works ever written on the origins of Christianity, says: “After having exhausted the literature and the testimony bearing on the point, we have not found a single distinct trace of any of those Gospels during the first century and a half after the death of Christ.” How can Gospels which were not written until a hundred and fifty years after Christ is supposed to have died, and which do not rest on any trustworthy testimony, have the slightest value as evidence that he really lived? History must be founded upon genuine documents or on living proof. Were a man of to-day to attempt to write the life of a supposed character of a hundred and fifty years ago, without any historical documents upon which to base his narrative, his work would not be a history, it would be a romance. Not a single statement in it could be relied upon.
posted February 22, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Chicago Tribune even covers the rise of Christianity Feb 22 2009
Jesus in China: Christianity’s rapid rise
The rise of Christianity is reshaping the officially atheist nation, its politics and the way many Chinese view the world. The Tribune’s Evan Osnos reports from Beijing and the countryside.
BEIJING -
Rev. Jin Mingri peered out from the pulpit and delivered an unusual appeal: “Please leave,” the 39-year-old pastor commanded his followers, who were packed, standing-room-only on a Sunday afternoon, into a converted office space in China’s capital. “We don’t have enough seats for the others who want to come, so, please, only stay for one service a day.”
A choir in hot-pink robes stood to his left, beside a guitarist and a drum set bristling with cymbals. Children in a playroom beside the sanctuary punctuated the service with squeals and tantrums. It was a busy day at a church that, on paper, does not exist.
Christianity — repressed, marginalized and, in many cases, illegal in China for more than half a century — is sweeping the country, overflowing churches and posing a sensitive challenge to the officially atheist Communist Party.
Video
Related links
Jesus in China: Life on the edge
Jesus in China: Christianity’s rapid rise
Church and state in China: A primer
About this report
Audio slideshow: Christianity sweeping China
Audio slideshow: Bible empire grows in China
Excerpt from FRONTLINE/World: ‘Jesus in China’ Video
FRONTLINE/World: ‘Jesus in China’ Video By some estimates Christian churches, most of them underground, now have roughly 70 million members, as many as the party itself. A growing number of those Christians are in fact party members.
posted February 23, 2009 at 1:39 am
Harry said: You apparently will fall for the liberal press polls…atheist professors continue to put pressure on the students who want a high grade…the same professors push for DARWINIAN EVOLUTION ONLY! CENSORING INTELLIGENT DESIGN!
Boris says: Atheist professors? You better check your OWN academic community. Evolution and common descent are taught in EVERY CHRISTIAN college and university with a science department. Explain that. ID is a religious hoax (creationism disguised in a lab coat) that had its day in court where it met its demise.
Harry said: DNA killed atheism…everyone who works with a computer can tell you an intelligent program doesn’t write itself…
BILLIONS OF YEARS…BILLIONS OF DOLLARS won’t make a man out of a chimp or make socialism work. Both are moronic!
Boris says: This argument is simply reflective of ignorance of the extraordinary power of evolution’s bottom-up design mechanism. Once you have an understanding of multigenerational mutation and natural selection, and also understand how structures with irreducible complexity evolve, there’s nothing unlikely or implausible about evolution at all. In fact, genetic algorithms (the computer software version of evolution), are starting to take over the world of invention with innovative new engineering advances that top-down designers like human beings might have never come up with. Bottom-up design is not only probable, it’s inevitable and nearly always produces better designs than any intelligent creator could have. Computer programs ARE in fact writing themselves now.
The complexity of DNA is the result of 4 billion years of evolution it didn’t just pop randomly into existence. The first cells had no DNA and reproduced by falling apart.
What does any thinking person care what theologians like Wolfhart Pannenberg and Alister McGrath say? The most important discussion theologians have EVER had is arguing about how many angels can fit on a head of a pin! ROFL! Theology isn’t even a subject it’s study of nothing.
posted February 23, 2009 at 2:09 pm
==The wishful dating of manuscripts or the fact that they were copied accurately or the number of manuscripts says nothing at all about whether the stories in them are true.==
The Hebrew and Textus Receptus Greek are accurate in the upper 90 percentiles. The Greek TR is accurate and the upper 90 percentile when compared to over 5600 manuscripts.
== The fact that they have word for word dialog in them means they are not historical narratives anyway but fictions.==
That, of course, is if you read the Word of God as you would a newspaper.
== No history was ever written the way the Bible is.==
So what?
== The Bible has no elements of history writing and all the elements of fiction writing.==
That’s the way one would look at it if one were to read the Word of God as he would a newspaper, or a textbook.
== Bible believers are funny.==
The Devil lets us, too. But so what? We’re gonna have the last laugh, anyway.
== There is absolutely nothing to show that these Gospels–the only sources of authority as to the existence of Christ–were written until a hundred and fifty years after the events they pretend to describe.==
Of course, that’s not true. It’s true to YOU, of course.
==How can Gospels which were not written until a hundred and fifty years after Christ is supposed to have died, and which do not rest on any trustworthy testimony, have the slightest value as evidence that he really lived?==
The Gospel of John was written by John. He was with Jesus.
== History must be founded upon genuine documents or on living proof.==
The Gospel of John was written by a man who was actually there, on scene, with Jesus.
== Were a man of to-day to attempt to write the life of a supposed character of a hundred and fifty years ago, without any historical documents upon which to base his narrative, his work would not be a history, it would be a romance.==
The Word of God is unique. The natural man is not expected to understand. That’s cuz he’s blind.
==Not a single statement in it could be relied upon.==
Of COURSE YOU can’t rely on Him because you reject Him. Do you actually believed that He would reveal Himself to somebody who turns his back on Him?
posted February 23, 2009 at 2:47 pm
harryoutdoors,
When Jesus was in the wilderness, He didn’t waste His time trying to persuade the Devil who will not be persuaded. The Devil was not there to be persuaded, rather to do the persuading to which Jesus, reflecting on what God says, did not fall victim, as the Devil had hoped.
The intellectualism of the Devil is intended to drag us away from God and His Word. There IS an intellectualism that draws us nearer to Him, as where God says, “Let us reason together…”
My suggestion: Don’t let yourself be drawn even more into an intellectualist’s argument that is intended to hinder your relationship with God by getting you to say only, “Gee, I wonder.” If you think, “I wonder,” he’s got you hooked, and any further, deep discussion of his ideas puts you in further jeopardy.
There IS an intelligent discussion of the world, beginning first with the understanding that it — the goodness of Creation — all comes from God, and, then, discussion of those wonders.
So, again, my suggestion: Be careful.
posted February 23, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Thank You Mr Incredible…I’ll keep that in mind.
Truth shall set you free and Jesus Christ is Truth…so, I’m really not afraid of Satan’s lies. God created our minds and WISDOM comes from the fear of the Lord…so, we have sound minds and wisdom in Him…
Boris isn’t Satan anyway, and he is actually searching for truth just as many many other young people today search for answers…some are a bit more brash and pushy but, that’s okay! So are we sometimes, right?
I know I am!
Boris represents the new atheists of today…they quote what they see and hear and try out those quips on us Christians…cool! We need to be tested and see what our mettle is…today is not the day for the ordinary but a day battle!
Today we shall see many come to know Christ and understand how He holds all things together.
Remember Paul reaching out to a whole city where they worshipped all kinds of gods…even one god that had no name…they called him the UNKOWN GOD. Paul didn’t bash them for being pagans but showed them the ONE TRUE GOD they worshipped in ignorance.
Atheists who truly seek knowledge and truth will have to wrestle with the GOD OF TRUTH…deep deep within they are wrestling now and many are coming to know Jesus Christ because they are driven by the truth of science and the truth of God’s Word.
No one is beyond salvation…even atheists. God is reaching them in droves.
posted February 23, 2009 at 9:29 pm
The believer said: My suggestion: Don’t let yourself be drawn even more into an intellectualist’s argument that is intended to hinder your relationship with God by getting you to say only, “Gee, I wonder.”
Boris says: In other words don’t think, don’t “wonder,” don’t doubt just believe whatever your cult leaders tell you. And you say that kind of brainwashing is reaching atheists in droves? Not adult atheists who THINK it isn’t and you know it. The ONLY atheists that kind of brainwashing works on is young children who are all born atheists and stay that way until their parents or peers pack their heads with ridiculous fear induced superstitions. And THAT is child abuse. Many adults reject their religion as do 80% of Christian college students and this has always been the case. This is why the apologetic for this in the Bible claims there will be a falling away from the faith in the “last days.” Of course each generation of Christians since the Bible was written has read current events into the Bible and vice versa and thought their generation was in the last days. We’re ALWAYS in the last days! Ever heard of the little boy who cried wolf? That’s Christianity in a nut shell.
“If religion were true, its followers would not try to bludgeon their young into an artificial conformity; but would merely insist on their unbending quest for truth.” – H.P. Lovecraft (1890-1937)
posted February 23, 2009 at 11:03 pm
==In other words don’t think, don’t “wonder,”…==
You misrepresent what I wrote…again.
==… don’t doubt just believe whatever your cult leaders tell you.==
I don’t believe what others tell me about the Word of God unless what they tell me aligns with the Word of God.
posted February 24, 2009 at 12:20 am
WOW! BORIS You’re quoting statistics again! We know how reliable your research is…
You must not know what child abuse is to toss out a stupid line you got in your atheist chat room…
You should apologise to every child who is victimized by pedophiles and parents who beat them bloody. Men and women who are fractured inside not knowing what true love is or if they should even live another day because of TRUE CHILD ABUSE!
You can’t just toss these words out and hope Dawkins will make your apologies…your making him rich by the way, he’s laughing all the way to the bank of Switzerland.
posted February 24, 2009 at 3:32 am
Harry,
You said: Of course you miss the WHOLE story Boris…the Son volunteers to die for those who are lost.
Boris says: You mean the way Dionysus paid for the sins of all mankind by sacrificing himself. Or Attis or Adonis or Mithras or Demeter or any of the other dying and resurrecting god-men who died to pay for our sins. Christianity is truly the copycat religion.
You said: This is what really burns within your spirit…you can’t understand…humility when PRIDE wants to rule…submission where SUPRIMACY would be our choice…sacrifice in the place of SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST!
Boris says: What burns your spirit is I DO understand. I understand very well that your religion is a hoax. Unbelief is very threatening to people with a shaky belief system such as yours which is based on fantasy instead of evidence.
You said: Jesus couldn’t have been killed 20 years ago…there was a very narrow window of prophecy for the Messiah to fit into history.
Jesus Christ fulfilled these and defied natural laws of probability.
Boris says: Why do you people fall so easily for this prophecy hoax? Each of the prophecies listed by McDowell is confirmed in no other place except in the Bible. We have no independent evidence that events actually took place as described – especially the ones happening in heaven. Before making the extraordinary claim that something supernatural occurred, simple common sense tells us that we must rule out the ordinary, far more plausible account that the events are fictional, written so as to conform to biblical prophecies. For example, Prophecy 55 takes the opening words of one of David’s Psalms, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me” (Ps. 22:1a, King James Version) and sees this precisely fulfilled with Jesus’ last words on the cross (Matt 27:46). Which is the more plausible account: an extraordinary event in which a thousand years earlier David predicted the exact words of the Messiah (although he does not identify them as such) or a perfectly ordinary one in which Matthew puts these words in Jesus’ mouth when telling the story of the crucifixion? Do you see how easily other PEOPLE have convinced you the Bible is true with the prophecy hoax? I see through it and obviously you don’t. Ha! I think it’s pathetic that people want so badly to believe that they would fall for something that is a common set up and pay off of prophecy fiction. You should thank me for exposing this Christian hoax for you.
posted February 24, 2009 at 7:11 am
==Boris isn’t Satan anyway…==
And, Harry, indeed, he doesn’t have-ta be.
Satan, or his demons, as you surely know, can come to a person through anything, or anybody. They are all disguises cuz neither he, nor his demons, can face us; he knows we’d all recognize him for what he is. So, using people, he must act through suggestions, thoughts that sound remarkably as our own. He and his demons are ventriloquists, in a way. They come to us in our own voices, inwardly, and we think that their suggestions are ours, and we think, “how can I be wrong, if they are MY thoughts?” Those thoughts translate into arguments that are tempting, and, if engage in those arguments, not relying on the Word, well…
However, as you know, we are wise to the Devil’s ways, and Jesus was, too, and that’s why He didn’t have conversation with the Devil, knowing that the Devil tricks through “intellectualism,” or filthy conversation [the Word distinguishes between Good conversation and filthy conversation].
Don’t get me wrong. I’m just trying to help.
posted February 24, 2009 at 7:19 am
==We have no independent evidence that events actually took place as described – especially the ones happening in heaven. ==
We have on-scene-eyewits who have testified as to the accuracy of the Word of God.
Where are YOUR on-scene eyewits to deny what they have described?
posted February 24, 2009 at 8:00 am
Anywho…
Nobody has been able to answer my question about the Fairless Doctrine:
How do you monitor, fairly calculate and fairly balance STREAM OF CONSCIOUSNESS EXPRESSIONS in order to accommmodate the proposed rule?
posted February 24, 2009 at 8:04 am
The software running this site is some-a the most screwy stuff I’ve ever seen.
posted February 24, 2009 at 10:02 am
Incredible said: We have on-scene-eyewits who have testified as to the accuracy of the Word of God.
Boris says: Great. People who are mentioned nowhere else but the Bible claim that the events in the Bible are true. Once AGAIN attempting to prove the existence of Batman by citing the eyewitness testimony of Robin the Boy Wonder. Once again we have the religious mind in all its absurdity telling us the Bible is true because the people who wrote it said it is. The same old tired circular argument: Because the Bible tells me so. It doesn’t get any more absurd or ridiculous. And these people wonder why intellectuals are atheists!
posted February 24, 2009 at 1:03 pm
==People who are mentioned nowhere else but the Bible claim that the events in the Bible are true. ==
That’s cuz they were THERE.
So, where are YOUR on-scene eyewits to say that what our on-scene eyewits say is not true?
==Once AGAIN attempting to prove the existence of Batman by citing the eyewitness testimony of Robin the Boy Wonder.==
Boy Wonder is not a real person. Our on-scene eyewits were real people who have testified that they saw and heard the things and events described.
Please feel free to give us the names of people who were on scene with our eyewits and who say that our eyewits didn’t see what they testify they saw.
== Once again we have the religious mind in all its absurdity telling us the Bible is true because the people who wrote it said it is.==
I believe that the people who were there have testified acrruately that the events to which they testified actually happened.
== The same old tired circular argument: Because the Bible tells me so.==
What appears to be a circular argument is actually your head spinning.
== It doesn’t get any more absurd or ridiculous.==
And, yet, you offer no on-scene eyewits to say that what our on-scene eyewits say they heard and saw they didn’t hear, nor see.
== And these people wonder why intellectuals are atheists!==
We don’t wonder at all. We know, and it ain’t pretty.
posted February 24, 2009 at 8:02 pm
Incredible,
You said: Boy Wonder is not a real person. Our on-scene eyewits were real people who have testified that they saw and heard the things and events described.
Boris says: Where did these eyewitnesses testify to the events described in the Bible? Why their testimony to the events described in the Bible is described nowhere else but in the Bible! Once again, the Bible’s true because it says it is!
You said: And, yet, you offer no on-scene eyewits to say that what our on-scene eyewits say they heard and saw they didn’t hear, nor see.
Boris says: The proposal for the other party to disprove the positive assertion is a logical fallacy known as shifting the burden of proof. It’s never the responsibility of the person denying the claim to disprove it. The person who makes the positive claim is always responsible for proving it’s factual. Whether or not you believe that Santa Claus, leprechauns, alien abductions, a god made out of pasta is more ridiculous than a god who is pleased by the smell of burnt flesh and the sight of blood is simply a matter of perspective. Each demands the same amount of proof.
See if you can grasp this: The Bible says rotting corpses came back to life, climbed out of graves and went to Jerusalem and appeared to many (Matt27:52-53). Where are the eyewitness accounts from in or outside the Bible of these “many” who supposedly witnessed this miraculous event? We notice the author doesn’t even claim to have witnessed this event nor do any of the other gospels mention it either. This supposed event is not described anywhere in any kind of historical document. Needless to say it would have been.
The author of 1Corinthians claims the resurrected Jesus appeared to 500 brothers and the apostles and then in a separate appearance to himself. Where can we find the eyewitness account of just one of these 500 men? How about an account in a real historical document from one of the apostles? Isn’t amazing that such a miracle goes unrecorded anywhere but in 1 Corinthians 15:6? Whether the Bible claims 1 person or 10,000 witnessed something makes no difference unless we can first prove the event actually happened and then find multiple testimonies from these witnesses that do not conflict with each other to back up the claim that there were any witnesses at all.
What it comes down to is that we both know there isn’t any kind of evidence from outside the Bible that could tell us that the claims made and tall tales told in the Bible even might be true. You’re willing to take the words of ancient superstitious animal sacrificing religious fanatics seriously and deny all modern science and ridicule scientists in order to justify this, and I am not.
posted February 24, 2009 at 8:09 pm
Boris, you’re a trip!
All you are doing is showing your agenda and that is: DRUM ROLL PLEASE!!!! YOU BELIEVE IN NOTHING!
Well, that wasn’t really deserving of a drum roll but my point is you are just proving you will not accept any proof, mathematical equation, philosophical argument…nothing, zip, nada!
This is called a closed mind which is very dangerous when it is armed with an agenda.
All the Jews of Jesus’s day knew the marks of the Messiah and it was the FAKE Jews (Saducees and Pharasees) who were in power and had Christ crucified because they knew He was dangerous to their way of life.
Atheists are also up in arms because they know the TRUTH is dangerous to their way of life…i.e.,immoral, amoral, biased and blasphemous lifestyles which include saying right is wrong and wrong is right…
Manuscript evidence of the Bible OVERWHELMES the credentials of any other religion, creed, society, civilization or philosopher…
Other religions copy Judeo Christian roots…
Athiests have adopted the tactics of the Liberal Press…say a lie over and over again and people will start to believe it…
that is until they catch on and we have caught on!
posted February 25, 2009 at 8:42 am
==Where did these eyewitnesses testify to the events described in the Bible?==
Wherever they were at the time. In neighborhoods. On cross-country trips. In houses. Restaurants.
==Why their testimony to the events described in the Bible is described nowhere else but in the Bible!==
Their descriptions are reported in many places.
==Once again, the Bible’s true because it says it is!==
No, He’s true because He is, and witnesses on the scene report events that they saw and heard.
==You said: And, yet, you offer no on-scene eyewits to say that what our on-scene eyewits say they heard and saw they didn’t hear, nor see.
Boris says: The proposal for the other party to disprove the positive assertion is a logical fallacy known as shifting the burden of proof.==
Of course, it’s obvious that you are trying to distract, by appearing scholarly and academic, from the real point that you have nobody to show that our on-scene eyewitnesses don’t know what they’re talking about. All you do is make the accusation that our on-scene eyewitnesses don’t know what they’re talking about.
== It’s never the responsibility of the person denying the claim to disprove it.==
I’m not asking you to disprove it. All I’m asking for is for you to bring up just ONE on-scene eyewitness who says that all those who report seeing and hearing events in the Word of God are lying.
== The person who makes the positive claim is always responsible for proving it’s factual.==
And I have. I have provided witnesses, there Deposition. Where’s the deposition of YOUR on-scene eyewitnesses?
==Whether or not you believe that Santa Claus, leprechauns, alien abductions, a god made out of pasta is more ridiculous than a god who is pleased by the smell of burnt flesh and the sight of blood is simply a matter of perspective.==
No, it isn’t. No one has seen Santa Claus. No more than one person at a time seen leprechauns. No more than one person at a time has seen alien abductions. No one has seen a god made out of pasta do anything having to do with Salvation.
However, the on-scene eyewitnesses I have provided testify to actual events.
==The Bible says rotting corpses came back to life, climbed out of graves and went to Jerusalem and appeared to many (Matt27:52-53).==
You mean, just like that??
== Where are the eyewitness accounts from in or outside the Bible of these “many” who supposedly witnessed this miraculous event?==
“Appeared to many.” The “many” say that the Saints appeared to them. That’s the witness.
== We notice the author doesn’t even claim to have witnessed this event…==
So what? The “many” witnessed it. The author merely reports their witness. He took there deposition.
==… nor do any of the other gospels mention it either.==
Each Gospel has a different purpose. It’s not necessary that another Gospel mention it.
== This supposed event is not described anywhere in any kind of historical document.==
It’s described in the Word of God.
== Needless to say it would have been. ==
That’s YOUR “reasoning.” Of course, you “reason” from the perspective of one who is trying to defeat the Word of God. So, you can hardly be objective, nor trustworthy, to instruct us on the mysteries of God.
==The author of 1Corinthians claims the resurrected Jesus appeared to 500 brothers and the apostles and then in a separate appearance to himself. Where can we find the eyewitness account of just one of these 500 men?==
Paul reports the summary of their eyewitness. Individual details, as though they witnessed a traffic accident, are irrelevant. It’s enough that 500 saw and heard and that Paul reports that 500 saw and heard. Of course, it’s not enough or YOU cuz, after all, you’re trying to defeat the Word of God, trying to get us to help you with “intellectual” vexations and incantations.
== How about an account in a real historical document from one of the apostles?==
You won’t accept anything that doesn’t agree with you. We can’t reason you out of something into which you haven’t been reasoned.
== Isn’t amazing that such a miracle goes unrecorded anywhere but in 1 Corinthians 15:6?==
To scoffers, yes. It would be.
== Whether the Bible claims 1 person or 10,000 witnessed something makes no difference unless we can first prove the event actually happened…==
The witnesses at the events saw and heard the events. Again, where are YOUR eyewitnesses to say that they don’t know what they’re talking about?
==… and then find multiple testimonies from these witnesses that do not conflict with each other to back up the claim that there were any witnesses at all. ==
The Word of God provides enough evidence that people were at the events and saw and heard what they say they saw and heard, or what the authors/reporters say the witnesses saw and heard cuz they were there.
==What it comes down to is that we both know there isn’t any kind of evidence from outside the Bible that could tell us that the claims made…==
Irrelevant. The Word of God reports that witnesses were on scene and saw and heard what they say they saw and heard.
==You’re willing to take the words of ancient superstitious animal sacrificing religious fanatics seriously…==
I’m willing to take the words of people who are there who saw and heard what they say they saw and heard, backed up by others who were also there.
==… And deny all modern science…==
We don’t deny all modern Science.
==… and ridicule scientists…==
We don’t ridicule scientists who admit that their knowledge is extremely limited.
posted February 25, 2009 at 8:50 am
== Where are the eyewitness accounts from in or outside the Bible of these “many” who supposedly witnessed this miraculous event?==
The Word of God has the EXCLUSIVE story. You might say it’s just good journalism.
posted February 25, 2009 at 8:53 am
== Where are the eyewitness accounts from in or outside the Bible of these “many” who supposedly witnessed this miraculous event?==
Many witnessed the ditching of that jetliner in the Hudson River. It was not necessary to get excruciating detail from all of them, even one of them. It was enough to report that many witnessed it just cuz the reporter knew that many had.
posted February 25, 2009 at 8:57 am
Anywho…
When can we get back to the subject of this particular blog, and not be dragged off subject by Boris who is obsessed with trying to defeat the Word of God, à la Sisyphus.
posted February 25, 2009 at 9:02 am
==What it comes down to is that we both know there isn’t any kind of evidence from outside the Bible that could tell us that the claims made and tall tales told in the Bible even might be true.==
So, when “The New York Times” has an exclusive story, we shouldn’t believe it cuz no one else has the story. Uh-huh. We understand.
posted February 25, 2009 at 9:11 am
==Why their testimony to the events described in the Bible is described nowhere else but in the Bible!==
So, what about Josephus? What about Roman historians? They report the same things. What, they don’t know anything?
posted February 25, 2009 at 9:12 pm
The entry about Jesus in the works of Josephus is a forgery done by Church liar and propagandist Eusebius. Had this entry existed before the fourth century the Church fathers would have gladly used it to hurl at their critics who knew that Jesus never existed. Origen wrote that there were no mentions of Jesus in the works of Josephus. You’ve bought a Christian lie about a Christian forgery without doing any research on the subject whatsoever. What tale of the supernatural in the Bible does even one Roman historian corroborate?
posted February 25, 2009 at 10:36 pm
Roman historians, writing separately, and no friends of Christians, also report on the life of Jesus.
posted February 25, 2009 at 11:23 pm
Incredible,
I’m very glad you brought those Roman historians up. Here they are: Pliny the Younger (61-115 AD) who wrote in 112 CE, Caius Suetonius (c.69–140 CE) and Cornelius Tacitus (c.55-117 AD) both of whom also wrote in the second century. A grand total of three historians born several decades after the supposed death of Jesus and didn’t write a word about any Jesus of Nazareth and then not until the second century is hardly contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ. This is what is passed off to those wanting very much to believe there actually was a historical Jesus but for the rest of us it’s pretty good proof that no such person as Jesus Christ ever existed. Especially since no Jewish historians wrote a word about him. Philo certainly would have as he lived in and around Jerusalem during the first half of the first century and wrote extensively about it. The silence of actual contemporary historians regarding Jesus is unknown to most Christians. The smokescreen put up by Christian apologists using people like the historians mentioned above proves the weakness of the case for a historical Jesus. I’m sure there was no such person. I don’t see how any thinking person can disagree. It’s no wonder they keep throwing this fake shroud up as evidence for something. It’s ALL they’ve got!
posted February 25, 2009 at 11:33 pm
http://www.lifeofchrist.com/history/historians/
That site presents the historians from the time who wrote about Jesus, the historical Figure.
posted February 25, 2009 at 11:38 pm
==…for the rest of us it’s pretty good proof that no such person as Jesus Christ ever existed.==
You mean, for the rest of you who want so much not to believe that there was an actual, historical person, Jesus Christ.
== Especially since no Jewish historians wrote a word about him.==
http://www.lifeofchrist.com/history/historians/
==I’m sure there was no such person.==
Particularly in view of the fact you want they’re not to be such a person.
== I don’t see how any thinking person can disagree.==
Translation: “I don’t see how any person who wants to defeat the Word of God and to present twisted arguments in furtherance of that can disagree.”
== It’s no wonder they keep throwing this fake shroud up as evidence for something. It’s ALL they’ve got!==
Oh, you mean historical evidence? Yes, we have historical evidence of Jesus.
posted February 25, 2009 at 11:41 pm
==A grand total of three historians born several decades after the supposed death of Jesus and didn’t write a word about any Jesus of Nazareth and then not until the second century is hardly contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ. ==
Of course, you choose three who didn’t write about Him out of the many who DID.
posted February 25, 2009 at 11:54 pm
Okay, went to that site and I invite EVERYBODY to do the same. There isn’t once contemporary historian or mention of Jesus within a mile of that page. Please provide the “evidence” you found on that site for us all! Paste it here for all to see. I dare you!
posted February 26, 2009 at 7:52 am
==Okay, went to that site and I invite EVERYBODY to do the same. There isn’t once [sic] contemporary historian or mention of Jesus within a mile of that page.==
You need to put on your coke-bottle bottom glasses on first.
posted February 26, 2009 at 10:35 am
Incredible once again I’ve proved your blatant disregard for the facts and reckless disregard for the truth. If that sight is the best evidence you have for your case you’ve got NO case at all. ROFL! All you’ve done is prove that Jesus never existed for me. Thanks. Once again Incredible shot down in flames by the truth about the Christian system o dogmatic superstitions.
posted February 26, 2009 at 3:13 pm
==Incredible once again I’ve proved your blatant disregard for the facts and reckless disregard for the truth.==
Translation: “You have the gall not to agree with me and, so, you disregard the facts and the truth cuz I have the facts and the truth and YOU don’t!”
=== If that sight [sic] is the best evidence you have for your case you’ve got NO case at all.==
It’s just one site. Yes, the word is “site.”
==All you’ve done is prove that Jesus never existed for me.==
You didn’t need me. You were persuaded long before I got here.
==Once again Incredible shot down in flames by the truth about the Christian system o dogmatic superstitions.==
Hardly, but you’re free to choose to feel that you have shot me down.
posted November 6, 2009 at 9:58 pm
Dems want the return of the Fairness Doctrine to stifle the dominant, religious right’s powerful influence on the airwaves. Ironically, left politicians see free speech as a threat to their existence when this principle is a core to American democracy. Their motto would be something like: If you can’t beat them, crush them.