These are my own scientific heretic Christian words. I understand that The Gospels in the Bible are the finished products of the separate sketchy writings of four or more witness; there were unknown numbers of editors, versions and some cross fertilizations involved in producing the finished products we have today. Luke evidently was a Greek sent several years later to interview people and write an accurate account and I prefer to consider Luke the Base Line. Although details vary, the basic story is the same. Unfortunately, many more videos like that could be produced; I believe Paul tells three versions of his epiphany. For people that have had personal experiences with God’s Spirit, Angels and or Jesus over the last 2,000 (or even 5,000 years), we can live with those contradictions with a little consternation knowing that any actual event written about years later will have such problems; not to mention well meaning editing. To my cousin Jews, be careful slamming us because the Tanakh is loaded with the same and even more. Judeo-Christianity is mostly by Faith and that must be the way God wants it.
Rob in Nova Scotia
March 4, 2016 12:23 pm
You know I find whole video funny. I laughed from start to finish because person who did this takes the piss out of both feminism and the resurrection. In just 6 minutes and 12 seconds. So I read first two responses. Neither answered either question. I’m not surprised. Good satire cuts. To me this a good satire.
I’m not going to bother with anon they won’t even sign their name. Besides their argument is invalid.
so
rhs jr.
Is it satire or is it hate speech. Simple question. And you don’t have to find it funny for it to be satire. The second part is important because if we were living in a muslim country and this video was played but making fun of Mohamed then I could be called a heretic and subject to punishment under sharia law. For second question, I’m not sure you were triggered so I will say the answer would be no to the second even though you spent a couple hundred words going in circles.
I think think they are fair questions to ask. We spend all our time taking shots at black people in West Philly, the politicians and their cronies that sponsor them yet when we turn the lens we deflect. Why is that anyways?
We should find ourselves funny and ridiculous. A good laugh once in a while is not a bad thing.
In the interests of fairness I’ll post this
Rdawg
March 4, 2016 12:30 pm
Why doesn’t the big G just edit His Word to straighten everything out? He could do it instantaneously, with no effort on His part in all versions and every language. Problem solved.
Administrator
Author
March 4, 2016 3:18 pm
Harvard Law School drops controversial emblem in slavery row
New York (AFP) – Harvard’s law school, one of the most prestigious educational bodies in the world, announced Friday it would scrap its official emblem depicting a crest, in a row about slavery.
The shield, which says “Veritas” and shows three sheaths of wheat, was modeled on the family crest of a notoriously brutal 18th century slaveholder. It was adopted as the symbol of the law school in the 1930s.
Student campaigners have protested for five months for its removal, as demonstrations about race have increasingly rocked campuses in Britain and America.
Last week Harvard also decided to retire use of the title “house master” to denote staff who head up undergraduate residences, instead calling them “faculty deans” after students protested that the term harked to slavery.
Harvard Law School is the alma mater of a number of prominent US politicians and lawyers, among them President Barack Obama.
The school set up a 12-member committee of staff, students and alumni to review the crest, and recommended 10 to two that the shield be axed.
“We believe that if the law school is to have an official symbol, it must more closely represent the values of the law school, which the current shield does not,” the committee said in a report.
The shield is modeled on the coat of arms of the family of Isaac Royall, whose bequest endowed the first chair of law at Harvard.
Royall was the son of an Antiguan slaveholder known to have treated his slaves with extreme cruelty, including burning 77 people to death, the law school said.
Dean Martha Minow endorsed the departure of the crest.
“Its association with slavery does not represent the values and aspirations of the Harvard Law School,” she said in a message to campus.
In Britain, campaigners were furious in January when Oxford University’s Oriel College refused to remove a statue of 19th century imperialist Cecil Rhodes, a white supremacist who endowed the Rhodes Scholarship, which has helped students from across the world study at the prestigious university.
Desertrat
March 4, 2016 6:07 pm
Seems to me that sheaves of wheat represent food, not slavery. However, eliminating “truth” from a modern education seems apropos–what with so many Hahvahd grads going into government.
rhs jr
March 5, 2016 1:09 am
Rob, sorry I neglected that. The people that made the vid may hate somebody but why should I go looking for hate and make things worse? Without checking, I assume the vid is true and perhaps the makers are Jews or atheist honestly trying to educate folks “in your eye bud” of their “discovery” in a snarky way; if I get offended, they would like that; but wouldn’t they be less likely to hear my side? So to help my opinion get an honest hearing, better to be polite and professional. Judging content alone, isn’t the vid the truth so why not let the truth itself stand neutral (a simple academic lecture approach)? My guess it is an honest bias against Christianity capitalizing on the New Testament Gospels contradictions; but I hate to see the many errors of their bias go uncorrected for their own spiritual sakes. I hope it was just serious Satire without hate but with a very noticeable bias. Even if it was hateful but true, it is protected 1st Amendment speech. Designating something as “Hate” speech is Godless Cultural Communism intended to brand someone as evil and to create even more divisiveness. Even if they boldly said “You stupid ignorant Christian fool”, what value to return an eye for an eye “Oh yeah, well you’re a bigger stupid whatever fool”. Rather, try to use it as a teaching moment for the glory of the Lord. Try to return love for hate and maybe make a friend and save a soul. If you fail, wish them a blessed day and walk away. Let them simmer in hate until done.
EL Coyote
March 5, 2016 2:32 am
rhs jr says: I believe Paul tells three versions of his epiphany.
Bob, whatever we recall at first, we later find details or imagine explanatory details. If the motive is not prevarication we can still engage in some error while searching our memory, that is why witnesses tend to have differences in their telling of events.
If Paul is back-filling for clarity or if he is illustrating a different point I have no problem. He was there, I wasn’t.
I don’t care if he was on the horse or off it, if it was a white horse or if his companions heard anything but thunder. The main point he makes is that he heard a voice and he was set straight, re-directed from the wrong path, which is what conversion is.
You hear a lot of arm-chair theologians say stupid things like, all wars are due to religion or there are many paths to god. I can accept that some wars have a religious basis and I can accept that there are many ways that people convert, perhaps that is what they mean, in traveling different paths, they are thrown off their high horse before seeing the light.
Rob in Nova Scotia
March 5, 2016 8:05 pm
Rhs jr. you are using circular logic for a simple question. I thought it was funny. I ‘m on the fence about God and Bible but I would hope that God has a sense of humour. I realize many Christians are offended by a video like this but that is the point of making it. I am not offended.
You still haven’t answered my question but I understand.
I’ll ask just one more
Can I be a Christian and like this video?
Stucky
March 5, 2016 8:16 pm
There are many inconsistencies throughout the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and quite a few in the Gospels. Some, or several, of them are quite serious — meaning, several of the same stories are recorded where ONLY ONE of the variations can possibly be true. The video does a very good job pointing some of them out. Nothing wrong with that. Asking questions, even tough questions is always a good thing … even if you’re a Christian.
Rob in Nova Scotia
March 5, 2016 9:31 pm
I agree Stucky
That is why I like the video. Good satire asks and answers questions.
Sarcasm, but a rather poor example of it.
These are my own scientific heretic Christian words. I understand that The Gospels in the Bible are the finished products of the separate sketchy writings of four or more witness; there were unknown numbers of editors, versions and some cross fertilizations involved in producing the finished products we have today. Luke evidently was a Greek sent several years later to interview people and write an accurate account and I prefer to consider Luke the Base Line. Although details vary, the basic story is the same. Unfortunately, many more videos like that could be produced; I believe Paul tells three versions of his epiphany. For people that have had personal experiences with God’s Spirit, Angels and or Jesus over the last 2,000 (or even 5,000 years), we can live with those contradictions with a little consternation knowing that any actual event written about years later will have such problems; not to mention well meaning editing. To my cousin Jews, be careful slamming us because the Tanakh is loaded with the same and even more. Judeo-Christianity is mostly by Faith and that must be the way God wants it.
You know I find whole video funny. I laughed from start to finish because person who did this takes the piss out of both feminism and the resurrection. In just 6 minutes and 12 seconds. So I read first two responses. Neither answered either question. I’m not surprised. Good satire cuts. To me this a good satire.
I’m not going to bother with anon they won’t even sign their name. Besides their argument is invalid.
so
rhs jr.
Is it satire or is it hate speech. Simple question. And you don’t have to find it funny for it to be satire. The second part is important because if we were living in a muslim country and this video was played but making fun of Mohamed then I could be called a heretic and subject to punishment under sharia law. For second question, I’m not sure you were triggered so I will say the answer would be no to the second even though you spent a couple hundred words going in circles.
I think think they are fair questions to ask. We spend all our time taking shots at black people in West Philly, the politicians and their cronies that sponsor them yet when we turn the lens we deflect. Why is that anyways?
We should find ourselves funny and ridiculous. A good laugh once in a while is not a bad thing.
In the interests of fairness I’ll post this
Why doesn’t the big G just edit His Word to straighten everything out? He could do it instantaneously, with no effort on His part in all versions and every language. Problem solved.
Harvard Law School drops controversial emblem in slavery row
New York (AFP) – Harvard’s law school, one of the most prestigious educational bodies in the world, announced Friday it would scrap its official emblem depicting a crest, in a row about slavery.
The shield, which says “Veritas” and shows three sheaths of wheat, was modeled on the family crest of a notoriously brutal 18th century slaveholder. It was adopted as the symbol of the law school in the 1930s.
Student campaigners have protested for five months for its removal, as demonstrations about race have increasingly rocked campuses in Britain and America.
Last week Harvard also decided to retire use of the title “house master” to denote staff who head up undergraduate residences, instead calling them “faculty deans” after students protested that the term harked to slavery.
Harvard Law School is the alma mater of a number of prominent US politicians and lawyers, among them President Barack Obama.
The school set up a 12-member committee of staff, students and alumni to review the crest, and recommended 10 to two that the shield be axed.
“We believe that if the law school is to have an official symbol, it must more closely represent the values of the law school, which the current shield does not,” the committee said in a report.
The shield is modeled on the coat of arms of the family of Isaac Royall, whose bequest endowed the first chair of law at Harvard.
Royall was the son of an Antiguan slaveholder known to have treated his slaves with extreme cruelty, including burning 77 people to death, the law school said.
Dean Martha Minow endorsed the departure of the crest.
“Its association with slavery does not represent the values and aspirations of the Harvard Law School,” she said in a message to campus.
In Britain, campaigners were furious in January when Oxford University’s Oriel College refused to remove a statue of 19th century imperialist Cecil Rhodes, a white supremacist who endowed the Rhodes Scholarship, which has helped students from across the world study at the prestigious university.
Seems to me that sheaves of wheat represent food, not slavery. However, eliminating “truth” from a modern education seems apropos–what with so many Hahvahd grads going into government.
Rob, sorry I neglected that. The people that made the vid may hate somebody but why should I go looking for hate and make things worse? Without checking, I assume the vid is true and perhaps the makers are Jews or atheist honestly trying to educate folks “in your eye bud” of their “discovery” in a snarky way; if I get offended, they would like that; but wouldn’t they be less likely to hear my side? So to help my opinion get an honest hearing, better to be polite and professional. Judging content alone, isn’t the vid the truth so why not let the truth itself stand neutral (a simple academic lecture approach)? My guess it is an honest bias against Christianity capitalizing on the New Testament Gospels contradictions; but I hate to see the many errors of their bias go uncorrected for their own spiritual sakes. I hope it was just serious Satire without hate but with a very noticeable bias. Even if it was hateful but true, it is protected 1st Amendment speech. Designating something as “Hate” speech is Godless Cultural Communism intended to brand someone as evil and to create even more divisiveness. Even if they boldly said “You stupid ignorant Christian fool”, what value to return an eye for an eye “Oh yeah, well you’re a bigger stupid whatever fool”. Rather, try to use it as a teaching moment for the glory of the Lord. Try to return love for hate and maybe make a friend and save a soul. If you fail, wish them a blessed day and walk away. Let them simmer in hate until done.
rhs jr says: I believe Paul tells three versions of his epiphany.
Bob, whatever we recall at first, we later find details or imagine explanatory details. If the motive is not prevarication we can still engage in some error while searching our memory, that is why witnesses tend to have differences in their telling of events.
If Paul is back-filling for clarity or if he is illustrating a different point I have no problem. He was there, I wasn’t.
I don’t care if he was on the horse or off it, if it was a white horse or if his companions heard anything but thunder. The main point he makes is that he heard a voice and he was set straight, re-directed from the wrong path, which is what conversion is.
You hear a lot of arm-chair theologians say stupid things like, all wars are due to religion or there are many paths to god. I can accept that some wars have a religious basis and I can accept that there are many ways that people convert, perhaps that is what they mean, in traveling different paths, they are thrown off their high horse before seeing the light.
Rhs jr. you are using circular logic for a simple question. I thought it was funny. I ‘m on the fence about God and Bible but I would hope that God has a sense of humour. I realize many Christians are offended by a video like this but that is the point of making it. I am not offended.
You still haven’t answered my question but I understand.
I’ll ask just one more
Can I be a Christian and like this video?
There are many inconsistencies throughout the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and quite a few in the Gospels. Some, or several, of them are quite serious — meaning, several of the same stories are recorded where ONLY ONE of the variations can possibly be true. The video does a very good job pointing some of them out. Nothing wrong with that. Asking questions, even tough questions is always a good thing … even if you’re a Christian.
I agree Stucky
That is why I like the video. Good satire asks and answers questions.