Piers Morgan: Hey, let’s amend the Bible

posted at 9:01 am on December 27, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

And not just the Bible, but Piers Morgan wants to amend the Constitution, too. It’s a darn good thing that the CNN host needed work badly enough to emigrate to a place that he finds so disagreeable.  What did we ever do without him?

I have no issue with the concept of amending the Constitution — and neither did the founders, who accepted that it might prove flawed for later use.  That’s why they included the mechanisms for amending the foundational document of American law within it, mechanisms that have been used 17 times since the original passage of the Constitution.  We have even had one amendment repeal another (the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th).  If Morgan wants to press for an amendment repealing the Second Amendment in whole or in part, he just needs to convince two-thirds of both the House and Senate to pass it, and then get three-quarters of the states to ratify it. Have fun storming the castle!

His insistence on amending the Bible amuses more than it shocks, because it’s impossible to take Morgan seriously.  He’s needling Rick Warren, nothing more, and attempting to provoke him into a heated exchange. Warren is simply smarter than Morgan, and takes a pass.

If Morgan was serious, then it’s still less offensive than humorous, but the joke is on Morgan.  If you believe that the Bible is the unerring word of God, then you know that it’s absurd to suggest that it be “amended” based on the latest human fashion, which is what Warren explains.  God is, after all, unchangeable — or He wouldn’t be God at all. It would be equally absurd to think that anyone would base their faith on the amended product, a Gospel According To Piers, if you will, unless people decided that Piers is either God Himself or a new prophet, in which case he’d probably have a better gig.

And if you don’t think that the Bible is the unerring word of God … why would you care what’s in it at all?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 11

NONE of it is verifiable history! Cite one source from the same time period that refers to ANY event in the bible. There were greek & roman historians at the time writing about a lot of stuff, none of which mentioned a jesus from nazareth…

There are many Jewish and secular authorities who wrote about the historicity of a Nazarene named Jesus whom they acknowledged as either a Rabii or teacher that had a significant following and was even crucified. Some 1st century non Biblical/non Christian historians include:
1. Tacitus (possibly the greatest historian of ancient Rome)
2. Suetonius
3. Pliny the Younger
4. Thallus
5. Mara Bar-Serapion
6. Josephus

That’s only a partial list and should satisfy your scrutiny on this point. If not we could list more and even passages from their writings that mention the historicity of Jesus as I have that at the ready.

I don’t know what Morgan believes about history, but using the bible as a historicly accurate text is akin to believing the events in the iliad unfolded as told in that epic.

Of those historical claims that are written in the Bible that have been verified one way or the other through either secular corroberation and/or archealogical record, I’ll take the Bible’s accuracy over any other historical textbook I’ve read covering the same period. The same goes for scientific truths, its record and scientific texts of the same era.

Unlike anyone named jesus, who may or may not have existed, and who has exactly one source (the bible) attesting to his life.

Timin203 on December 27, 2012 at 11:03 AM

No serious historian would ever make that claim since the historicity of Jesus has many non Biblical sources. There are more independent accounts written about the Man than Mohammed or Buddha yet we don’t doubt the historicity of them. Just in the very small list I gave above taken together they account for the following:
1. Jesus was a Jewish teacher whom many people believed performed miracles.
2. He was crucified under the governorship of Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius.

anuts on December 27, 2012 at 1:28 PM

The 95.5% accuracy means that for each corresponding copy of a letter, the copies were accurate to that percentage. Of all the copies there were only two errors and these were transcribing errors. This shows a great effort on the part of the early churches to make sure that the copies that they used were totally accurate to the original letter written by the apostles.

Rose on December 27, 2012 at 1:11 PM

Uhh.. okay? Assuming thats true, it only proves that people were good at copying.

Without such a final arbitrator, all living beings exist at the whim and convenience of those more powerful then themselves. Who holds the most powerful accountable. If there is no one capable of doing so, then there are no rights, only temporary grants of privilege that suit the convenience of those who nobody can hold accountable.

SWalker on December 27, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Yeah, you’re making my point for me. re-read your post and mine. There is no one to hold the powerful accountable except for their fellow man.

As you said, “Having a right and being denied the ability to exercise that right are not the same as not having a right. This is where the distinction between a right and a privilege comes in. ”

So just because no one can enforce your rights against the powerful doesn’t mean it’s a right. Which is what I originally said, then you agreed with, then you went on and disagreed with.

Timin203 on December 27, 2012 at 1:28 PM

The least intelligent are usually his agents.

tom daschle concerned on December 27, 2012 at 12:50 PM

that qualifies you to possible satan’s agent then! :P welcome to the club!

nathor on December 27, 2012 at 1:29 PM

Why Rick Warren? Calling him America’s pastor is sacrilege. He is so far off the doctrine rails…

tom daschle concerned on December 27, 2012 at 1:29 PM

In a Universe that has no God,

SWalker on December 27, 2012 at 1:12 PM

You know this, but such a place cannot exist.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 1:29 PM

He wrote after the fact, and wrote about followers of a new sect of judaism being mistreated by the main sect.

Timin203 on December 27, 2012 at 12:12 PM

Would he be an historian if he were to write about it before the fact?

anuts on December 27, 2012 at 1:33 PM

tom daschle concerned on December 27, 2012 at 1:29 PM

Because Liberals are comfortable with him.

…As opposed to a Franklin Graham, or, an Adrian Rogers, if he were still with us.

kingsjester on December 27, 2012 at 1:33 PM

Why Rick Warren? Calling him America’s pastor is sacrilege. He is so far off the doctrine rails…

tom daschle concerned on December 27, 2012 at 1:29 PM

Although their differences are fundamental to to the lives and moral beliefs of their followers and supporters, Obama and Warren both dismiss these differences as merely a couple points of contention among a myriad of equally vital issues.

http://usliberals.about.com/od/barackobama/a/ObamaWarren.htm

Warren is not fit to be anyone’s pastor.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 1:33 PM

The story was amended for popular culture because what Moses said is a lot more applicable, and mass consumable, than the real ones on the stone tablets that modern people can hardly relate to at all.

Genuine on December 27, 2012 at 1:18 PM

ROFL! Define “popular”, please? If you mean today’s culture, you’re missing the point that they would be the Ten Suggestions. If you mean sometime in the past, then please point to when that happened. I will be able to make the exact same argument!

I think you’ve been schooled enough, today, Genuine. I’ll be praying for you.

GWB on December 27, 2012 at 1:34 PM

BTW, many in the UK doesn’t want Piers back either. Mark Steyn suggested that he be deported to Bermuda so that he can hang out with the 4 Uighurs, who Obama gifted to the Land of the Rising Google Offshore Accounts.

Resist We Much on December 27, 2012 at 1:14 PM

They sure “doesn’t” :) You are a one witty dame, very gifted.

As for the rest here, friends and foes, none of you solved it. It’s always ‘fun’ to read some of yer futile ‘fights’ and endeavours…which in itself is futile.

In the meanwhile watch your real enemies, all in DC, from top to bottom.

Russia and Egypt are very easy to emulate. They’ll get the leftist’s heads first because they hate, absolutely despise, weasels. Please internalize this leftists. Of course, if you were free thinking people you wouldn’t be such tards.

Schadenfreude on December 27, 2012 at 1:34 PM

They will also admit that this Jesus had a great many miraculous events ascribed to him contemporaneously. The resultant events – the journeys of the apostles, the divisions within the Jerusalem church, the growth of this sect – are also pretty well attested by non-Biblical and non-church sources.

You don’t have to believe in the miracles based on that evidence, but you do have to admit that scripture is not just a fairy tale concocted by a handful of men. Jesus did exist. What you believe of him is what matters.

GWB on December 27, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Without doing any additional googling, I’m pretty sure there is one contemporary source (a greek, I believe) who mentioned a prophet in palestine. I believe that is the single possible non-follower source of a jesus existing.

I do know that there are no records of miracles, and that unrest was common in occupied palestine and has been throughout written history.

There is strikingly little written history throughout the history of man kind, and much of what we know may, in fact, not be true…

I’m not saying that a lack of contemporary references to jesus means he did not exist. I’m saying we can’t even firmly establish that he existed, much less that anything in the bible actually happened. I said earlier that I think he probably did exist, I don’t think a bunch of guys wrote the bible as a frat prank or whatever, I do think that like most stories, it was loosely based in some sort of fact. But I could be wrong, it could be totally made up.

Timin203 on December 27, 2012 at 1:35 PM

leftists’ heads…to be more accurate

Schadenfreude on December 27, 2012 at 1:36 PM

And if they were men inspired by god, why would god confuse people by telling true stories and then liberally sprinkling in anecdotes with no way to tell what should be taken seriously and what is just a cute story about god damning thousands of people?

Timin203 on December 27, 2012 at 1:03 PM

Did you ever play “Telephone” as a child? Get 20 kids sitting in a big circle and whisper something into the first kids ear, have him whisper it into the next kids ear, by the time it gets to the 20th kid it’s all mixed up and bares little resemblance to the original message.

Why is that? The answer is actually surprisingly simple, no two human beings process information exactly the same. Our brains and therefore our minds are, well extremely complex organs. They do frightfully amazing things every single day of our lives. They receive, process, analysis, correlate and store truly amazing amounts of information. But depending on various circumstances, they don’t always do it 100 percent perfectly.

It really isn’t surprising that Genesis is filled with both factual and allegorical anecdotes considering that it was given to people who as yet did not have what we today consider a fundamental scientific foundation upon which to understand the concepts that they were being told.

How many thousands of years did it take us to produce the periodic table of elements? Differential calculus? Quantum physics? How would you explain to someone who did not understand nuclear fusion what a nuclear explosion was, or Magnetic Nuclear Resonate Imaging? It’s a very trick thing explaining extremely complex ideas to people who have no fundamental understanding of underlying principals involved. You can’t just give them the facts, when the facts have absolutely no reference point from which they can gleen an understanding of those facts.

Remember, the ancient authors of those texts were not stupid, they did not lack intelligence they were ignorant, umm, uneducated regarding certain highly specialized fields knowledge.

SWalker on December 27, 2012 at 1:37 PM

Awww. What’s the matter, nancy-boy? You still hurt from the pwning I gave you the other night?
Are your little feeeeewins all hurted, simple b!tch?
Perhaps you are the one who should STFU; and FOAD while you’re at it.
But you keep flailing away, princess.
Solaratov on December 27, 2012 at 1:25 PM

Don’t be upset. It’s not my fault you unwittingly made the exact same argument that I’d been making, thinking it proved your point, instead of proving mine. Notice in your response you don’t even mention your original “point” anymore.

It happens, brother. Better luck next time. ;)

You kids have fun. In a moment of objective study, you’ll find I’m correct.

Genuine on December 27, 2012 at 1:37 PM

Timin203 on December 27, 2012 at 1:28 PM

What it proves is that the basis for the New Testament is not something that was randomly made up 2 or 3 hundred years latter. The documents used for the compilation of the New Testament had historical accuracy and wide usage by the Christian churches.

Rose on December 27, 2012 at 1:38 PM

Here’s one for you anti-theists: The Bible is not meant for you who willingly refuse to open up even if just a little; the Bible is not meant for those who refuse God. You will always be confounded by it, the same way Lord Jesus is either a rock on which to stand or is the stone on which you trip and next fall.

Your choice.

When we get down to brass tacks, we Christians lose nothing at all for our faith if you anti-theists are right. Our ‘life energy’ goes back into the Universe if we’re ‘wrong’. But can you define ‘life energy’? What is that, scientifically speaking?

The most I see of you anti-theists id that you constantly need to feel ‘right’ on this subject. You constantly seek to ‘win’.

But among we Christians, our aim is that GOD wins, not us.

Liam on December 27, 2012 at 1:38 PM

. In a moment of objective study, you’ll find I’m correct.

guffaw.

tom daschle concerned on December 27, 2012 at 1:39 PM

The laws against murder exist not because god says murdering another is bad, but because everyone has the inalienable right to live without being murdered by someone else.

In other words, just laws should have nothing to do with the perpetrator and how we want him to live, but have everything to do with the victim and his right to live.

Timin203 on December 27, 2012 at 11:11 AM

How do you figure that?

Why would I consider you worthy of life and freedom if there was no moral constraint on me to do so? If I found that you were in my way, and there was no ‘moral constraint’ on me to recognize your inalienable right to life, what stops me from just running you over?

Solaratov on December 27, 2012 at 1:39 PM

No serious historian would ever make that claim since the historicity of Jesus has many non Biblical sources. There are more independent accounts written about the Man than Mohammed or Buddha yet we don’t doubt the historicity of them. Just in the very small list I gave above taken together they account for the following:
1. Jesus was a Jewish teacher whom many people believed performed miracles.
2. He was crucified under the governorship of Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius.

anuts on December 27, 2012 at 1:28 PM

I don’t know if you’re purposely being dishonest, or if you haven’t really read those sources. None were contemporary, none clearly referenced jesus. Tacitus, who I am familiar with, wrote briefly about jesus about 70 to 100 years after his death.

Pliny was also around after Jesus’s death… No one is claiming that christians did not exist in palestine around 100 AD.

I’m assuming the rest of your sources are also from that time period or later, but I don’t have time to google everyone your list.

Timin203 on December 27, 2012 at 1:40 PM

ROFL! Define “popular”, please? If you mean today’s culture, you’re missing the point that they would be the Ten Suggestions. If you mean sometime in the past, then please point to when that happened. I will be able to make the exact same argument!
I think you’ve been schooled enough, today, Genuine. I’ll be praying for you.
GWB on December 27, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Lol! Suuuuure I have, GWB. Sure I have. Btw, you got the bible verse that shows the ten commandments as the modernly accepted version?

Nope, you don’t. The tablets, the ONLY thing referred to as the ten commandments, said something else. Prove me wrong.

Genuine on December 27, 2012 at 1:41 PM

Remember, the ancient authors of those texts were not stupid, they did not lack intelligence they were ignorant, umm, uneducated regarding certain highly specialized fields knowledge.

SWalker on December 27, 2012 at 1:37 PM

Very true. Most stupid, uneducated people were also illiterate. But we’re still dealing with the word of man, not the word of god. If we throw out the idea that the bible is written by god, then its just a bunch of guys writing about something they probably believed in.

Timin203 on December 27, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Prove me wrong.

Genuine on December 27, 2012 at 1:41 PM

Prove yourself right. All you have been expounding upon this entire thread, is your opinion.

You have had the getalife smacked out of you this entire thread.

You ae just too pompous, and filled with b.s. and hatred for Christianity, to admit it.

kingsjester on December 27, 2012 at 1:44 PM

What it proves is that the basis for the New Testament is not something that was randomly made up 2 or 3 hundred years latter. The documents used for the compilation of the New Testament had historical accuracy and wide usage by the Christian churches.

Rose on December 27, 2012 at 1:38 PM

I’m not saying it was made up 2 or 3 hundred years later! Historical accurance is not the phrase youre looking for. You’re trying to prove to me that people were good at transcribing documents without screwing up. I don’t know / care how many extant versions of each text there are, and who took the time to sit down and compare them word for word in ancient aramaic. I don’t doubt for a minute that there would be a 90%+ accuracy in transcribing large documents, the christian monks in the dark ages did it constantly with remarkable attention to detail.

What does that have to do with god, or historic accuracy?

Timin203 on December 27, 2012 at 1:47 PM

You don’t believe it, because it contradicts what you’ve been told. But, it is true that there is more documentation about Jesus’ life than about many other things that you would accept as fact based on the history you have been taught. Any honest historian will admit that Jesus not only existed, but caused quite a turmoil in the little Roman province called Palestine. They will also admit that this Jesus had a great many miraculous events ascribed to him contemporaneously. The resultant events – the journeys of the apostles, the divisions within the Jerusalem church, the growth of this sect – are also pretty well attested by non-Biblical and non-church sources.

You don’t have to believe in the miracles based on that evidence, but you do have to admit that scripture is not just a fairy tale concocted by a handful of men. Jesus did exist. What you believe of him is what matters.

GWB on December 27, 2012 at 1:27 PM

what sources? josephus writes extensively about jewish revolts about the political forces in judea around 70 CE and the only passage about “the jesus” is a disputed passage that even the catholic church call interpolated?!? christians were barely known during the “First Jewish–Roman War”(~70CE) and the “Bar Kokhba’s revolt(~132CE)”
the jews of those days looked for messiahs to liberate them from the romans as scripture promised and when the revolts failed, an obscure faction that claimed the messiah already came and was unnoticed gained popularity and this is the source of the jesus myth.

nathor on December 27, 2012 at 1:48 PM

I don’t know if you’re purposely being dishonest, or if you haven’t really read those sources. None were contemporary, none clearly referenced jesus. Tacitus, who I am familiar with, wrote briefly about jesus about 70 to 100 years after his death.

Timin203 on December 27, 2012 at 1:40 PM

I believe I wrote, in the same post, 1st century secular or Jewish sources. Most people would consider the same century as contemporary. When you said contemporary, I took that as what any prudent historian to mean especially given that many/most historical events weren’t taken from same day manuscripts as they happened.

anuts on December 27, 2012 at 1:48 PM

Give me the bible verse that shows the ten commandments on the tablets as they are commonly accepted today. The actual ten commandments, the only thing referred to as such and what was carved on the stone tablets given to Moses by God read as follows:

I. Thou shalt worship no other god.

II. Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.

III. The feast of unleavened bread thou shalt keep.

IV. Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest.

V. Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest,
and the feast of ingathering at the year’s end.

VI. Thrice in the year shall all your men children appear before the Lord God.

VII. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven.

VIII. Neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning.

IX. The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the LORD thy God.

X. Thou shalt not seethe a kid [ie, a young goat] in his mother’s milk.

So… Are you following the Ten Commandments given by god? Or the nicer, neater, more palatable and applicable to modern life reiterations only of the things God told Moses, and CALLING them the 10 commandments?

If you believe that they are the 10 you know, you are basing your faith on amended interpretations of the basic document, and not the word of god itself. Just as the author said its be absurd to think people would ever do.

Show me where the stone tablets say something different or where the bible straightens it all out and says, “Nah, go with what Moses said God said, rather than what God ACTUALLY put on the tablets.”

I’d be glad to see it. :)

Genuine on December 27, 2012 at 1:49 PM

Its amusing to find so-called right-wing militant atheists on this thread. Thats a byproduct of leftist ideology. They’re just closet leftists. I’ve been on both sides of the aisle. This is just closet leftism. Declaring your disbelief in God is fine. Its when you denigrate, demean a religion, their holy Book, and religious leaders that you spew hate. Thats a sure sign that you’re a closet leftist.

tommy71 on December 27, 2012 at 1:50 PM

Prove yourself right. All you have been expounding upon this entire thread, is your opinion.

You have had the getalife smacked out of you this entire thread.

You ae just too pompous, and filled with b.s. and hatred for Christianity, to admit it.

kingsjester on December 27, 2012 at 1:44 PM

How many someone prove themselves right to you? You can’t nullify his hypothesis, so you want to attack him/her personally and his/her motives, while saying his opinions are opinions while your beliefs are fact.

I believe his argument is that the ten commandments we generally accept are not laid out in the bible as “The Ten Commandments: 1) Thou Shalt…”

In fact, while there are references to bushes and broken stones and conversations with god, there is no bullet point list of commandments. That all came later, and there are discrepencies between the Catholic 10 commandments, and other christian 10 commandments… so even in 2012, we can’t figure out what the real 10 are and what the correct wording (which is very important when youre laying out 10 important rules) should be.

Timin203 on December 27, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Genuine is having a Chip Diller moment.

kingsjester on December 27, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Prove yourself right. All you have been expounding upon this entire thread, is your opinion.
You have had the getalife smacked out of you this entire thread.
You ae just too pompous, and filled with b.s. and hatred for Christianity, to admit it.
kingsjester on December 27, 2012 at 1:44 PM

I already have proved myself right. I gave you to passages citations that clearly show that I’m right.

It’s you that can’t admit that fact and attempt to override it withYOUR opinions that you can provide zero scriptural support to back them up with.

Can you show me where the tablets referred to as the ten commandments state what YOU believe they are? You can’t, can you?

Show me where what you think the ten commandments are, are referred to as “the ten commandments” instead of just Moses telling the people of the words “god spake”. Show me the passage that shows the tablets to say what you think they say.

Please. I’d love to see it.

Genuine on December 27, 2012 at 1:54 PM

The documents used for the compilation of the New Testament had historical accuracy and wide usage by the Christian churches.

Rose on December 27, 2012 at 1:38 PM

not the full story! there were many other gospel versions popular in those days, (the ones branded as heretic). the reason why they disappeared from history was because the faction of today’s bible allied itself with roman imperial power and outlawed all other version and persecuted them as heretics.

nathor on December 27, 2012 at 1:54 PM

Its amusing to find so-called right-wing militant atheists on this thread. Thats a byproduct of leftist ideology. They’re just closet leftists. I’ve been on both sides of the aisle. This is just closet leftism. Declaring your disbelief in God is fine. Its when you denigrate, demean a religion, their holy Book, and religious leaders that you spew hate. Thats a sure sign that you’re a closet leftist.

tommy71 on December 27, 2012 at 1:50 PM

Yes, everyone who does not pray to your god is a secret communism. And everyone who doesnt give proper reference to a religions holy book is clearly a liberal. Unless the holy book is the koran, and the religious leader is mohammed, then they’re probably a right wing nut job.

Got it.

Timin203 on December 27, 2012 at 1:55 PM

reverence

Timin203 on December 27, 2012 at 1:55 PM

SWalker on December 27, 2012 at 12:55 PM

It seems that the earth was created from the git-go. (But I think the first verse would be better translated, “In the beginning God created space and matter.” I believe the Hebrew allows for that.)

Then light. The source of that light is not given. From what little we know about light, that is a problem yet to be understood.

So, since the earth was already in existence and presumably rotating, the question of 24 hour time periods is answered.

I believe that the “days” in Genesis 1 are 24 hour time periods. But it is not, as some make it, a belief essential to one’s salvation.

Genesis chapters 1 and 2 are not scientific treatises, but they will be shown not to conflict with science.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 1:13 PM

ROTFLMAO… Or not.

Genesis 1

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

On day one, the earth was formless and empty, You will note, that it’s isn’t until the second day that the earth separated from heaven and not until the third day that the earth solidified into solid matter. Leaving 2 days where the earth had no rotation. Ergo, by logical deduction, a day cannot represent the rotation of the earth.

If you understand the physics behind the “Big Bang” this is exactly how science defines creation as having transpired. First there was a singularity, it’s point of origin is completely unknown. That singularity contained all of energy in the entire Universe in a state of complete entanglement. All of the energy in that singularity suddenly and inexplicably began to expand. It all ceased to occupy the exact same point in space at the exact same time.

SWalker on December 27, 2012 at 1:55 PM

what sources? josephus writes extensively about jewish revolts about the political forces in judea around 70 CE and the only passage about “the jesus” is a disputed passage that even the catholic church call interpolated?!? christians were barely known during the “First Jewish–Roman War”(~70CE) and the “Bar Kokhba’s revolt(~132CE)”

nathor on December 27, 2012 at 1:48 PM

This one? The Testimonium?

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 receive 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 among 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 for him are not extinct this day.

–(Antiquities, XVIII, 33)

anuts on December 27, 2012 at 1:59 PM

SWalker on December 27, 2012 at 1:37 PM

But we’re still dealing with the word of man, not the word of god.

Timin203 on December 27, 2012 at 1:42 PM

That is an assumption that you make. An assumption based on the logic fallacy that lack of evidence=evidence of a lack. Having no physical proof that the Bible is the word of God, is not the same as having physical proof that it is not the word of god.

SWalker on December 27, 2012 at 2:00 PM

That singularity contained all of energy in the entire Universe in a state of complete entanglement. All of the energy in that singularity suddenly and inexplicably began to expand. It all ceased to occupy the exact same point in space at the exact same time.

SWalker on December 27, 2012 at 1:55 PM

On creationism, science does not have a better answer then true believers do. At this point in time, we do not know how the “big bang” occured, or even if it really did. We do seem to be in an ever-expanding universe, which opens up some interesting / cool possibilities, but for now, the answer that “god created it” as as good as any other IMO. I prefer the “we don’t know” answer, because I think that there is a scientific answer, we just don’t know it yet, but whatever floats your boat.

God existing in the sense that something / someone created the universe makes a lot more sense to me then god exists in the whole christian sense of a bunch of middle easterners interacting regularly with god and writing about it thousands of years ago.

Timin203 on December 27, 2012 at 2:01 PM

Piers Morgan needs the boot. If you don’t like it here, GTFO.

dogsoldier on December 27, 2012 at 2:01 PM

How anyone can believe that the Jesus of the Bible did not exist is way beyond my comprehension.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Timin203 on December 27, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Both you and he are trying to prove a negative.

Both you and he are attacked a faith held by 78% of this nation’s population, and over 2 billion,Worldwide. You both want to cherrypick parts of the Bible, without a knowledge of it’s whole scope, or the difference in the Testaments and the Old and new Covenants.

Of course, that doesn’t matter to you, because you are waaay smatter that any Christian Scholar ever was.

Tell you what, genius. Go walk into a mosque, and tell the worshipers there, that God does not exist.

You want to denigrate Christians, but, when we stand up for our Faith, your only refuge is your overblown confidence in your own knowledge…which, by its very nature, is limited, at best,

Emerson once wrote, “All I have seen teaches me to trust the creator for all I have not seen.”

Your narrow, anti-theist view precludes you from learning that lesson.

kingsjester on December 27, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Genuine, my previous statement apllies to you as well.

kingsjester on December 27, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Usually, people who consider the bulk of the Bible to be 1 coherent work written by some guy which could therefore be “flawed” – rather than the story of a people and their conversations with God written over a millennium – are considered to be mouth-breathing yokels.

So yeah, Piers Morgan.

HitNRun on December 27, 2012 at 2:05 PM

SWalker on December 27, 2012 at 1:55 PM

The Big Bang Theory is slowly being discarded.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 2:06 PM

@Timin203 Lol, you’re a bit confused. ‘is a secret communism’? Whats that? Grammar much? Dude, you don’t have to give reverence. Its when you actively denigrate the holy book that you become a ‘militant atheist’. Say that you don’t believe in God, period. Denigrating is a byproduct of the left, and you don’t even know it. Lol.

tommy71 on December 27, 2012 at 2:06 PM

–(Antiquities, XVIII, 33)

anuts on December 27, 2012 at 1:59 PM

yep that is the passage that was forged. even the catholic encyclopedia call its “interpolated”.

nathor on December 27, 2012 at 2:08 PM

The Big Bang Theory is slowly being discarded.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 2:06 PM

WHAT?

They’re cancelling the TV show? /

Liam on December 27, 2012 at 2:08 PM

But really, I agree with Piers. I think the Constitution should be rewritten.

So how do we go about doing that with the apparatus we have now?

I propose we accept as a society to make changes that are agreed upon by both Houses of Congress – by a 2/3 majority, to make sure that they’re reflective of a widely popular and enduring opinion. After that, the agreed changes should be approved by 3/4 of the states, who are after all the nuts and bolts of our continent-spanning government.

/zing

HitNRun on December 27, 2012 at 2:08 PM

Genuine, my previous statement apllies to you as well.
kingsjester on December 27, 2012 at 2:04 PM

So what you’re really trying to say is, in the bible, it goes down exactly as I said it did and you have no scripture to show otherwise, but you are gonna accept the version taught to you and millions of other despite what the bible states.

Thereby proving my point that it is indeed, NOT absurd to think that people will follow amended, altered, and changed versions or interpretations of the bible after all.

Thanks Kingsjester. Your candor is appreciated. ;)

Genuine on December 27, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Timin203,

An honest inquiry: how many years apart from historical texts and the events that they are written about are you comfortable with when dealing with ancient events?

anuts on December 27, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Genuine on December 27, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Wow. As long as you have yourself, you’ll never be alone.

kingsjester on December 27, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Genuine on December 27, 2012 at 2:09 PM
Wow. As long as you have yourself, you’ll never be alone.
kingsjester on December 27, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Show me the scripture where you’re right. What’s the passage, hermano?

Genuine on December 27, 2012 at 2:14 PM

The Big Bang Theory is slowly being discarded.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 2:06 PM

WHAT?

They’re cancelling the TV show? /

Liam on December 27, 2012 at 2:08 PM

I indeed “laughed out loud” at that one.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 2:14 PM

Show me the scripture where you’re right. What’s the passage, hermano?

Genuine on December 27, 2012 at 2:14 PM

Have you found your strawberries, yet, Captain Queeg?

kingsjester on December 27, 2012 at 2:16 PM

Timin and Genuine, when are you gonna come outta the leftist closet? Militant atheism is a byproduct of leftist ideology. Atheism and its adherents are fine. But when you actively try to denigrate, thats a leftist attitude. The best part is that you don’t even realise it. Lol

tommy71 on December 27, 2012 at 2:16 PM

I’ve already provided mine and any cursory looking over them show exactly what I’ve said it shows.

Where’s your King?

Genuine on December 27, 2012 at 2:16 PM

http://creation.com/secular-scientists-blast-the-big-bang

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Oh please. I have actually studied Physics. That is, well quite frankly, clap-trap. I am not trying to be insulting, but whomever wrote that, they didn’t know what they were talking about. Unless your pastor or priest is an actual physicist then he really has no business discussing physics. Would you let your mechanic remove for appendix?

SWalker on December 27, 2012 at 2:17 PM

yep that is the passage that was forged. even the catholic encyclopedia call its “interpolated”.

nathor on December 27, 2012 at 2:08 PM

I”m curious to the reasoning or proof on why it is determined to be forged. And if it’s just that passage, volume, or the whole set of his Antiquities.

anuts on December 27, 2012 at 2:17 PM

The earth being describe as being “formless and void” does not necessarily exclude its being round and rotating.

A “shapeless blob” does have form.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 2:19 PM

If we ever deport this guy back to England, it would raise the average IQ of both countries.

WestTexasBirdDog on December 27, 2012 at 2:19 PM

If we ever deport this guy back to England, it would raise the average IQ of both countries.

WestTexasBirdDog on December 27, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Ouch.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Genuine on December 27, 2012 at 2:09 PM

You don’t understand us at all, do you? That’s okay, really.

But your refusal doesn’t make you somehow ”superior’ to us, despite your arrogant ego.

Liam on December 27, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Where’s your King?
Genuine on December 27, 2012 at 2:16 PM

My King? Right here.

kingsjester on December 27, 2012 at 2:20 PM

Timin203,

An honest inquiry: how many years apart from historical texts and the events that they are written about are you comfortable with when dealing with ancient events?

anuts on December 27, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Anything not written while the event is occuring is not going to be anywhere near as accurate as somethign written 100 years later. I’d say memories start to fade after a matter of weeks. Anything written months or years after an event should be taken with a grain of salt, as it most likely is relying on secondary sources, and anything written decades afterwards (especially without relying heavily on cited, extant primary sources) is not very historically helpful.

Imagine writing about the outbreak of world war 1, with nothing but oral tradition, and possibly some (now, no longer existing) secondary or tertiary written sources. that was about 100 years ago. It would be incredibly difficult to get details correct. You may or may not get the general ideas right, but any specifics would probably be off. that’s part of the problem with world history… unfortunately, much of our history was not documented very well and/or the documentation has not survived until the “modern era” where we can preserve first hand sources.

Timin203 on December 27, 2012 at 2:20 PM

Show me where the stone tablets say something different or where the bible straightens it all out and says, “Nah, go with what Moses said God said, rather than what God ACTUALLY put on the tablets.”

I’d be glad to see it. :)

Genuine on December 27, 2012 at 1:49 PM

I’m not sure what you’re arguing but try reading Deuteronomy 5:18, realizing that it refers to the immediately preceding passages.

Shy Guy on December 27, 2012 at 2:21 PM

SWalker on December 27, 2012 at 1:55 PM

The Big Bang Theory is slowly being discarded.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 2:06 PM

No, not just no, but emphatically no. The mathematics behind the Big Bang theory earned George Smoot a Nobel Prize in Physics in 2006. It is not only not being discarded, but has become as accepted in Physics as Einsteins General Theory of Relativity.

SWalker on December 27, 2012 at 2:21 PM

The Big Bang Theory is slowly being discarded.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Why so? The Big Bang doesn’t necessarily negate creationism. A mere scientific explanation of Genesis 1:3, perhaps.

anuts on December 27, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Genuine on December 27, 2012 at 1:37 PM

Poor lil thing. All butthurt.

Here; fill out your Butthurt Report and send it in to Attack Watch. There must be someone there who cares………………

http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc85/Mamba1-0/Stet/butthurtreport.jpg

Dipstick.

Solaratov on December 27, 2012 at 2:24 PM

Why so? The Big Bang doesn’t necessarily negate creationism. A mere scientific explanation of Genesis 1:3, perhaps.

anuts on December 27, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Oh, so excellent, there!

The Big Bang does not, ever, preclude or exclude God.

Liam on December 27, 2012 at 2:25 PM

Timin and Genuine, when are you gonna come outta the leftist closet? Militant atheism is a byproduct of leftist ideology. Atheism and its adherents are fine. But when you actively try to denigrate, thats a leftist attitude. The best part is that you don’t even realise it. Lol

tommy71 on December 27, 2012 at 2:16 PM

I’m not actively trying to denigrate. The only way for me to win my argument is to accept that I’m going to hell, that this country is screwed because not enough people believe in your god and that morality is based on your bible, and since I don’t believe in it, I must be an immoral person.

To argue is to expose myself as a closeted leftist because I must be a militant if I “denigrate” your holy book by not giving it the proper reverence you believe it deserves.

So when people on HotAir (rightly) “denigrate” the Koran and Mohammed when it relates to jihad and attitudes toward women, are they showing their true colors as closeted leftists?

Timin203 on December 27, 2012 at 2:25 PM

Timin203 on December 27, 2012 at 2:20 PM

For someone who doesn’t “care” about those that believe. You are sure spending an inordinate amount of time arguing with believers.

melle1228 on December 27, 2012 at 2:26 PM

Timin203 on December 27, 2012 at 2:20 PM

By your standard we now have to throw out all written history concerning Plato, Aristotle, and Julius Caesar since all documents are dated nearly or more than 1000 years after they lived.

Rose on December 27, 2012 at 2:26 PM

wnd.com reports:

Before Morgan’s coming to CNN, BBC News reported the journalist was fired from his editorial job at the Daily Mirror for publishing fraudulent photographs in May 2004.

He has also been implicated in a media phone-hacking scandal in Britain.

itsnotaboutme on December 27, 2012 at 2:26 PM

The earth being describe as being “formless and void” does not necessarily exclude its being round and rotating.

A “shapeless blob” does have form.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Actually that is exactly what it means, a shapeless blob, isn’t “Formless” or “void”. Formless means to have no structure, void means to have no substance. Formless and void means to be totally devoid of structure or substance. You cannot have rotation without mass, you cannot have mass without substance or structure. Ergo, an object that is formless and void cannot rotate, no rotation means that a day is not determined by the period of rotation.

SWalker on December 27, 2012 at 2:27 PM

Don’t waste your time trying to prove the existence of God or defend the bible. True change comes from the heart not the head. Just as I can’t prove scientifically that God exists, neither can anyone prove scientifically that He doesn’t exist.
Those who want to attack the bible are not doing so because they don’t believe it but because they hope it isn’t true (in my humble opinion). You can believe that there are no consequences for your actions or you can believe that you will be held accountable for your actions by a higher power. I can certainly understand the fear in thinking that you will have to be held accountable. The good news is that Jesus died so those who accept him will never be judged. Not because they are morally or intellectually better, but because the sacrifice that Jesus made in our place wipes away all of our past transgressions.

bandutski on December 27, 2012 at 12:08 PM

Pretty sure everyone will be judged.

antisense on December 27, 2012 at 2:28 PM

My King? Right here.

kingsjester on December 27, 2012 at 2:20 PM

Powerful. Thanks for that.

Jesus is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BY6VAy9y_iQ

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 2:29 PM

A mere scientific explanation of Genesis 1:3, perhaps.

anuts on December 27, 2012 at 2:22 PM

No more and no less.

SWalker on December 27, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Genuine on December 27, 2012 at 1:49 PM

What I’m really trying to figure out around here is why and how YOU think yourself so superior.

Care to explain that?

Liam on December 27, 2012 at 2:29 PM

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 2:29 PM

You’re welcome!

kingsjester on December 27, 2012 at 2:30 PM

SWalker on December 27, 2012 at 2:27 PM

We’ll have to disagree on the premises.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 2:30 PM

Its amusing to find so-called right-wing militant atheists on this thread. Thats a byproduct of leftist ideology. They’re just closet leftists. I’ve been on both sides of the aisle. This is just closet leftism. Declaring your disbelief in God is fine. Its when you denigrate, demean a religion, their holy Book, and religious leaders that you spew hate. Thats a sure sign that you’re a closet leftist.

I don’t see the correlation in not believing in fairy tales and liberalism. Religion is dumb. So is liberalism. I denounce them both.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 2:31 PM

I don’t see the correlation in not believing in fairy tales and liberalism. Religion is dumb. So is liberalism. I denounce them both.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 2:31 PM

So, you consider yourself ‘above it all’.

Why and how?

Liam on December 27, 2012 at 2:33 PM

By your standard we now have to throw out all written history concerning Plato, Aristotle, and Julius Caesar since all documents are dated nearly or more than 1000 years after they lived.

Rose on December 27, 2012 at 2:26 PM

Uhh… We have writings that Julius Ceasar himself wrote. Same is true for Plato and Artistotle. As in written by them. Terrible examples. But yeah, we certainly have had to piece together aspects of all of their lives, and we probably will never know the whole truth about any of them or the times they lived in because we don’t have the volume of writing from the classic world that we do from our modern world.

But histories written 100 years after their deaths probably are not very accurate, if that’s your point.

Timin203 on December 27, 2012 at 2:34 PM

bandutski on December 27, 2012 at 12:08 PM

Just remember that science and demonstrating the existence of God begin with the same presuppositions.

The existence of God is as firmly established as any scientific truth.

BTW: the statement that “If something cannot be proven scientifically cannot be true” is a statement that cannot be proven scientifically so is self-refuting.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 2:35 PM

Anything not written while the event is occuring is not going to be anywhere near as accurate as somethign written 100 years later.

Well, technically, those on my aforementioned list weren’t 100 years later. They were 30-60 years later. Which in ancient times is actually quite recent for historical standards. Do you believe Aristotle existed? Do you believe a great fire in ancient Alexandria happened? The Pelyponnesian War?

Imagine writing about the outbreak of world war 1, with nothing but oral tradition, and possibly some (now, no longer existing) secondary or tertiary written sources. that was about 100 years ago. It would be incredibly difficult to get details correct. You may or may not get the general ideas right, but any specifics would probably be off. that’s part of the problem with world history… unfortunately, much of our history was not documented very well and/or the documentation has not survived until the “modern era” where we can preserve first hand sources.

Timin203 on December 27, 2012 at 2:20 PM

But that’s just it. Do you believe what is commonly accepted about ancient history? The details, sure we don’t have to get into that but I’m speaking about the existence of people and happenstance of events. I’m trying to be consistent with the original claim I challenged from you. There are so many events and people that happened/existed in ancient history that weren’t written about until literally hundreds of years after. They are commonly accepted and corroberated. Yet here is an instance where multiple sources are 30-60 years after and seperate from the Gospels. I wonder why the same standard of scrutiny is not applied?

anuts on December 27, 2012 at 2:35 PM

So when people on HotAir (rightly) “denigrate” the Koran and Mohammed when it relates to jihad and attitudes toward women, are they showing their true colors as closeted leftists?

Timin203 on December 27, 2012 at 2:25 PM

No, they are displaying a rational reaction to a genuine threat to their lives and way of life. Phobia’s are irrational fears, not all fears are irrational.

SWalker on December 27, 2012 at 2:35 PM

So, you consider yourself ‘above it all’.

Why and how?

Liam on December 27, 2012 at 2:33 PM

The skeptic says, “It’s not true unless I say it’s true.”

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 2:37 PM

So, you consider yourself ‘above it all’.

Why and how?

Liam on December 27, 2012 at 2:33 PM

So disagreeing with you on religion and with liberals on progressivism (their quasi-religion) makes someone “above it all” when blindly believing in a god, based on nothing but “faith” is …what? enlightened? Smarter than us?

In other words, christians like to sit on their high horses, say all of you unenlightened plebes are going to hell, and we’re going to have eternal life BUT DONT YOU DARE DISAGREE WITH ME or you’re intolerant and an idiot.

Timin203 on December 27, 2012 at 2:37 PM

Timin, come on, dude. Didn’t I mention in my earlier post that you never had to revere. Just don’t denigrate, thats all. Thats leftists thinking. Regarding Islam, Quran etc. Whats do the leftists do? They remain quiet, whatever the nutty Islamists do. And dude, no one, and I mean NO ONE on HotGas knows Islamists and Islam like I do. I was born and raised among them.

tommy71 on December 27, 2012 at 2:37 PM

No, not just no, but emphatically no. The mathematics behind the Big Bang theory earned George Smoot a Nobel Prize in Physics in 2006. It is not only not being discarded, but has become as accepted in Physics as Einsteins General Theory of Relativity.

SWalker on December 27, 2012 at 2:21 PM

http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 2:38 PM

No, they are displaying a rational reaction to a genuine threat to their lives and way of life. Phobia’s are irrational fears, not all fears are irrational.

SWalker on December 27, 2012 at 2:35 PM

I am not talking about phobias. I’m being accused of being intolerant because I dare to denegrate the christian bible (by not believing in it), but it’s not considered intolerant when another religious’ book is denegrated.

Timin203 on December 27, 2012 at 2:39 PM

I”m curious to the reasoning or proof on why it is determined to be forged. And if it’s just that passage, volume, or the whole set of his Antiquities.

anuts on December 27, 2012 at 2:17 PM

josephus work is too massive and coincident with archeology to be all false. it was christian copyists that kept the work alive through out the centuries and its likely they changed only the parts relevant to them, in this case hypothetical historical references to jesus.
why this passage is clearly false?
1)because josephus is a jew and would not use such language.
2)because at the time, christians would not call themselfs christians, they only started to call themselfs christians in late 2nd century.
3) because in other sections of his work, josephus writes and list the jewish sects he knows and christians never appear. (note that the time of early christianity, christians were considered but another jewish sect)
4) christian sources only quotes this passage from the 4th century on. before that, christian apologists like origin extensively refer to Josephus work without ever quoting this passage.

nathor on December 27, 2012 at 2:39 PM

So, you consider yourself ‘above it all’.

Why and how?

I believe in personal responsibility: if I don’t work, I don’t eat. I don’t believe in an invisible god that provides for me or “blesses” me. I also believe that when I die I’m gone. Consequently, I value life and personal liberty.

It ain’t that hard.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 2:39 PM

Timin203 on December 27, 2012 at 2:37 PM

What if you present yourself, as you have, on an anonymouse Conservative website (that remains the ideology of the majority of posters here)as intolerant of their Faith?

How are they supposed to react?

kingsjester on December 27, 2012 at 2:39 PM

Oh, and as far as the endorsement of a Nobel prize: Obama is a Noble prize winner.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 2:40 PM

Timin203 on December 27, 2012 at 2:37 PM

I made no accusations at all. But you–to whom I did not speak–feels need to make defense?

I’ll leave things stand as YOU did.

You’re the one who issue in all of this. I don’t.

Liam on December 27, 2012 at 2:41 PM

So disagreeing with you on religion and with liberals on progressivism (their quasi-religion) makes someone “above it all” when blindly believing in a god, based on nothing but “faith” is …what? enlightened? Smarter than us?

In other words, christians like to sit on their high horses, say all of you unenlightened plebes are going to hell, and we’re going to have eternal life BUT DONT YOU DARE DISAGREE WITH ME or you’re intolerant and an idiot.

Nail hit squarely on head: anyone who has to live their life based on “faith” (on account that they lack any sort of reasonable evidence for their beliefs) doesn’t have much room to talk.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 2:44 PM

Timin203 on December 27, 2012 at 2:37 PM

You have no idea of us at all. The only thing on which you rely–and always do–is your own prejudice.

Liam on December 27, 2012 at 2:44 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 11