King james was gay!

[Cecilie1200]

Who cares?

Apparently the Original poster and some blind followers.

They still haven't given a good reason why we should care about the sex life of a king who died nearly 500 years ago.

Normal People shouldn't , but because the bible bangers have made a big issue about homosexuality its always good to show them their hypocrisy about where their "holy" book version that they cling to comes from

You wouldn't know hypocrisy if it crawled up your pants leg and bit you on the left ass cheek. Apparently, the same is true of logic and reason.

Thanks for joining us and lowering the collective IQ of the message board, newbie. Now scuttle off back to whatever institution you escaped from.

 

[Cecilie1200]

There is no error. Want to read the original Ezekiel? Would the stones his book is written on, taken from his tomb, count? Job is the oldest manuscript to survive.

There was a one hundred year rampage against Christianity following the death of Christ.
Everything Christian was burned, and authors and believers were soaked in oil, hung on poles that were inserted rectally and shoved up along their spine and then were lit to provide light for strolls in the garden. Followers were killed en masse.

Fortunately for us Christianity survived by manuscripts being spread to various locations, and scribes that painstakingly did their job. Don't trust "copies"? Look up the criteria that scribes had to follow. They were precise copies to the letter.

Bruce, you seem to have a bit of a chip on your shoulder. Are you mad at Jesus?

No originals exist, only copies.

And a lot of forgeries

Christian Forgeries,

Scrivenings on Controversial Topics in Science, Religion and History: Christian Forgeries, the Endings of the Gospel of Mark, The Implications

and

The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics
Forgery and Counterforgery - Bart D. Ehrman - Oxford University Press

Still wondering why 1) we're supposed to care about King James I's sexual proclivities, and 2) we're supposed to care what some nobody on the Internet thinks about our beliefs. Who are you again, and who the fuck asked you to approve? Don't like Christianity? Don't go to church. Don't talk about it. Don't think about it. Fucking ignore it. Treat it the way every woman you've ever been interested in has treated you. Problem solved.

 

[thebrucebeat]

There is no error. Want to read the original Ezekiel? Would the stones his book is written on, taken from his tomb, count? Job is the oldest manuscript to survive.

There was a one hundred year rampage against Christianity following the death of Christ.
Everything Christian was burned, and authors and believers were soaked in oil, hung on poles that were inserted rectally and shoved up along their spine and then were lit to provide light for strolls in the garden. Followers were killed en masse.

Fortunately for us Christianity survived by manuscripts being spread to various locations, and scribes that painstakingly did their job. Don't trust "copies"? Look up the criteria that scribes had to follow. They were precise copies to the letter.

Bruce, you seem to have a bit of a chip on your shoulder. Are you mad at Jesus?

No originals exist, only copies.

How do we know that? Would we recognize an original if we had it? How wouldd it differ from a copy?

By dating the ages of the copies. They far post-date when the originals would have been penned.

 

[thebrucebeat]

No originals exist, only copies.

And a lot of forgeries

Christian Forgeries,

Scrivenings on Controversial Topics in Science, Religion and History: Christian Forgeries, the Endings of the Gospel of Mark, The Implications

and

The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics
Forgery and Counterforgery - Bart D. Ehrman - Oxford University Press

Still wondering why 1) we're supposed to care about King James I's sexual proclivities, and 2) we're supposed to care what some nobody on the Internet thinks about our beliefs. Who are you again, and who the fuck asked you to approve? Don't like Christianity? Don't go to church. Don't talk about it. Don't think about it. Fucking ignore it. Treat it the way every woman you've ever been interested in has treated you. Problem solved.

Like you ignore it?
How could a follower of Christ don the persona you have adopted on here?
What code of love could create the harpy you choose to be here?

 

[Howey]

And a lot of forgeries

Christian Forgeries,

Scrivenings on Controversial Topics in Science, Religion and History: Christian Forgeries, the Endings of the Gospel of Mark, The Implications

and

The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics
Forgery and Counterforgery - Bart D. Ehrman - Oxford University Press

Still wondering why 1) we're supposed to care about King James I's sexual proclivities, and 2) we're supposed to care what some nobody on the Internet thinks about our beliefs. Who are you again, and who the fuck asked you to approve? Don't like Christianity? Don't go to church. Don't talk about it. Don't think about it. Fucking ignore it. Treat it the way every woman you've ever been interested in has treated you. Problem solved.

Like you ignore it?
How could a follower of Christ don the persona you have adopted on here?
What code of love could create the harpy you choose to be here?

The whore code. She's so ignorant she doesn't even know what a hyperlink is.

 

[Smilebong]

How do you know it's a reliable representation since there are no original manuscripts, just copies of copies. Have the copies been altered, chapters added or lost? To believe that alterations over the many centuries have not been made for political or religious reason or attempts to clarify passages is bit far fetched. You can only accept on faith that what we have today is the world of God.

Do some homework.

Summary:
Any document from antiquity has no originals.

Homer's Odyssey, Plutarch, etc., etc., etc.

The study of those documents has produced an entire science called manuscript theory.

And the way the originals are best approximated is by studying the copies. And the thousands of copies of Biblical texts is multitudinously more than the number of manuscripts of any other document from antiquity. And the agreement among them is astounding.

It is called textual analysis and criticism.
You still incorrectly made a reference to "original manuscripts" and the agreement of multitudes of copies does nothing to change that.

No, I did not make an incorrect reference. I studied this for years.

There were originals. They probably decayed due to time.

 

[guno]

No originals exist, only copies.

And a lot of forgeries

Christian Forgeries,

Scrivenings on Controversial Topics in Science, Religion and History: Christian Forgeries, the Endings of the Gospel of Mark, The Implications

and

The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics
Forgery and Counterforgery - Bart D. Ehrman - Oxford University Press

Garbage

no, do some research , most of it was forgeries

The Historical Jesus Forgeries and the New Testament

 

[guno]

Apparently the Original poster and some blind followers.

They still haven't given a good reason why we should care about the sex life of a king who died nearly 500 years ago.

Normal People shouldn't , but because the bible bangers have made a big issue about homosexuality its always good to show them their hypocrisy about where their "holy" book version that they cling to comes from

You wouldn't know hypocrisy if it crawled up your pants leg and bit you on the left ass cheek. Apparently, the same is true of logic and reason.

Thanks for joining us and lowering the collective IQ of the message board, newbie. Now scuttle off back to whatever institution you escaped from.

typical christian mentality, no thinking, just clinging to ignorance without any critical thinking or questioning and attaching those who call into question the premise of their "holy' books and beliefs

To sum up: Forgeries were much more common in the ancient world than they are today , if only because it was so much harder to detect them and to spread the news of their existence. When they were detected, there were those who cared enough to take action as far as they were able to do so. Christianity has not been impervious to the activities of forgers; but modern scholars have been able to expose most pseudo-Christian forgeries. Despite that, some clear forgeries remain part of the canon of the New Testament.

 

[guno]

Normal People shouldn't , but because the bible bangers have made a big issue about homosexuality its always good to show them their hypocrisy about where their "holy" book version that they cling to comes from

You wouldn't know hypocrisy if it crawled up your pants leg and bit you on the left ass cheek. Apparently, the same is true of logic and reason.

Thanks for joining us and lowering the collective IQ of the message board, newbie. Now scuttle off back to whatever institution you escaped from.

typical christian mentality, no thinking, just clinging to ignorance without any critical thinking or questioning and attaching those who call into question the premise of their "holy' books and beliefs

To sum up: Forgeries were much more common in the ancient world than they are today , if only because it was so much harder to detect them and to spread the news of their existence. When they were detected, there were those who cared enough to take action as far as they were able to do so. Christianity has not been impervious to the activities of forgers; but modern scholars have been able to expose most pseudo-Christian forgeries. Despite that, some clear forgeries remain part of the canon of the New Testament.

An example

Despite the best wishes of sincere believers and the erroneous claims of truculent apologists, the Testimonium Flavianum has been demonstrated continually over the centuries to be a forgery, likely interpolated by Catholic Church historian Eusebius in the fourth century. So thorough and universal has been this debunking that very few scholars of repute continued to cite the passage after the turn of the 19th century. Indeed, the TF was rarely mentioned, except to note that it was a forgery, and numerous books by a variety of authorities over a period of 200 or so years basically took it for granted that the Testimonium Flavianum in its entirety was spurious, an interpolation and a forgery. As Dr. Gordon Stein relates:

"...the vast majority of scholars since the early 1800s have said that this quotation is not by Josephus, but rather is a later Christian insertion in his works. In other words, it is a forgery, rejected by scholars."

So well understood was this fact of forgery that these numerous authorities did not spend their precious time and space rehashing the arguments against the TF's authenticity. Nevertheless, in the past few decades apologists of questionable integrity and credibility have glommed onto the TF, because this short and dubious passage represents the most "concrete" secular, non-biblical reference to a man who purportedly shook up the world. In spite of the past debunking, the debate is currently confined to those who think the TF was original to Josephus but was Christianized, and those who credulously and self-servingly accept it as "genuine" in its entirety.

To repeat, this passage was so completely dissected by scholars of high repute and standing--the majority of them pious Christians--that it was for decades understood by subsequent scholars as having been proved in toto a forgery, such that these succeeding scholars did not even mention it, unless to acknowledge it as false. (In addition to being repetitious, numerous quotes will be presented here, because a strong show of rational consensus is desperately needed when it comes to matters of blind, unscientific and irrational faith.) The scholars who so conclusively proved the TF a forgery made their mark at the end of the 18th century and into the 20th, when a sudden reversal was implemented, with popular opinion hemming and hawing its way back first to the "partial interpolation theory" and in recent times, among the third-rate apologists, to the notion that the whole TF is "genuine." As Earl Doherty says, in "Josephus Unbound":

"Now, it is a curious fact that older generations of scholars had no trouble dismissing this entire passage as a Christian construction. Charles Guignebert, for example, in his Jesus (1956, p.17), calls it 'a pure Christian forgery.

And yet with all the research and documentation , today's fundamentalist , which are intellectually challenged attack the scholarship and the documentation

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/09/anti-intellectu.html.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Do some homework.

Summary:
Any document from antiquity has no originals.

Homer's Odyssey, Plutarch, etc., etc., etc.

The study of those documents has produced an entire science called manuscript theory.

And the way the originals are best approximated is by studying the copies. And the thousands of copies of Biblical texts is multitudinously more than the number of manuscripts of any other document from antiquity. And the agreement among them is astounding.

It is called textual analysis and criticism.
You still incorrectly made a reference to "original manuscripts" and the agreement of multitudes of copies does nothing to change that.

No, I did not make an incorrect reference. I studied this for years.

There were originals. They probably decayed due to time.

LOLOLOL!
Now you admit that no originals are extant, contradicting your previous post.
If your brain is this inconsistent and undisciplined, I won't expect much from your years of "study".

 

[Chuckt]

It is called textual analysis and criticism.
You still incorrectly made a reference to "original manuscripts" and the agreement of multitudes of copies does nothing to change that.

No, I did not make an incorrect reference. I studied this for years.

There were originals. They probably decayed due to time.

LOLOLOL!
Now you admit that no originals are extant, contradicting your previous post.
If your brain is this inconsistent and undisciplined, I won't expect much from your years of "study".

How can you say it isn't the original when you claim you haven't seen the original?

 

[Howey]

Lol [MENTION=14617]Cecilie1200[/MENTION] the c - word calling someone a noon and she doesn't even know what a hyperlink link is.

 

[thebrucebeat]

No, I did not make an incorrect reference. I studied this for years.

There were originals. They probably decayed due to time.

LOLOLOL!
Now you admit that no originals are extant, contradicting your previous post.
If your brain is this inconsistent and undisciplined, I won't expect much from your years of "study".

How can you say it isn't the original when you claim you haven't seen the original?

My point exactly!!!
We don't know either way!
You are catching on. I made the exact point you are stating here a page ago.

 

[Chuckt]

LOLOLOL!
Now you admit that no originals are extant, contradicting your previous post.
If your brain is this inconsistent and undisciplined, I won't expect much from your years of "study".

How can you say it isn't the original when you claim you haven't seen the original?

My point exactly!!!
We don't know either way!
You are catching on. I made the exact point you are stating here a page ago.

So?

 

[thebrucebeat]

How can you say it isn't the original when you claim you haven't seen the original?

My point exactly!!!
We don't know either way!
You are catching on. I made the exact point you are stating here a page ago.

So?

What do you mean "So?"?
You just admitted no originals exist to compare to, getting caught making my argument for me, and you come back with "So?"

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Jimmy was often known to put his scepter in places where it did not belong....

Another queer making shit up to justify your own decisions...

What small minds you have.

Why [MENTION=27995]Uncensored2008[/MENTION] - I am absolutely shocked to see YOU, of all people, tell the truth about the bible - that's is just "made up shit to justify decisions".

Good for you.

 

[thebrucebeat]

I don't understand the lefty obsession with what people do in their own bedrooms.

I personally don't even want to know that leftists KNOW about sex, let alone have to think about them having it. I'd be mightily obliged if they'd shut up about their sex lives.

And yet your avatar is all about sexuality.
What a hypocrite.
Do you know that story where Jesus says "He who is without sin..."?
It doesn't exist in the earliest extant manuscripts, either partial or complete. It was added later.
I'm fairly sure that you would agree that the oldest manuscripts are probably closest to the originals. Why do you think someone added to the text?
The most used study bible in mainstream seminaries across the country is the Harper Collins, and it contains notes discussing this issue and questioning its authenticity. The Oxford Study Bible goes a step further and edits it out as it can not be claimed as an authentic part of scripture.
What did your years of "study" discover about that?

 

[JakeStarkey]

During the last two centuries the far right social conservative heretics have developed doctrines that will lead to apostasy: Biblical literalism, the Rapture, Jesus having to tell the baby dinosaur, “Sorry, dino, no room on the Ark.”

 

[Cecilie1200]

Still wondering why 1) we're supposed to care about King James I's sexual proclivities, and 2) we're supposed to care what some nobody on the Internet thinks about our beliefs. Who are you again, and who the fuck asked you to approve? Don't like Christianity? Don't go to church. Don't talk about it. Don't think about it. Fucking ignore it. Treat it the way every woman you've ever been interested in has treated you. Problem solved.

Like you ignore it?
How could a follower of Christ don the persona you have adopted on here?
What code of love could create the harpy you choose to be here?

The whore code. She's so ignorant she doesn't even know what a hyperlink is.

So what you're saying is, "I'm incapable of thinking for myself or forming my own opinion. I just read someone telling me that something is important, and I believe it and run off half-cocked and bother other people screeching about it, without even understanding it enough to explain what I read."

Every word you say would be smoking-gun evidence against you in court if "brain-dead stupid" was the capital offense it ought to be.

Seriously, if everyone else you've encountered has been too nice to say it, let me be the first: you have no business even existing. You should stop doing it immediately.

 

[MrMax]

King James does it on the down low with the rest of the Miami Heat.