Advertisement

LJWorld.com weblogs Israel Attacks

Pastor in Kansas wants Government to Kill Gays

Advertisement

Pastor in Kansas wants Government to Kill Gays http://www.darkgovernment.com/news/pastor-in-kansas-wants-government-to-kill-gays/ The pastor of New Hope Baptist Church in Seneca, Kansas says President Barack Obama has gone too far in supporting same sex marriage and it’s time for the U.S. government to begin killing gay men and lesbians. “Terrorists are dangerous, the economy is a real and present danger,” Pastor Curtis Knapp told his congregation on Sunday. “But there is simply nothing other than the holocaust of the unborn which imperils the safety of our country or places our people in jeopardy as does the leader of the Western world publicly raising his fist at the heavens and declaring that the bedrock institution of society, ordained of God and meant to be protected by the state, is little more than a convention of convenience with the children of Sodom to transform the meaning of something, which is precious to Jesus Christ, and a living picture of his love for the church into a legally protected justification for perversion and a vehicle of hatred aimed directly at that love.”

Knapp went on to read from Leviticus 20: “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death.”

“They should be put to death,” Knapp declared. “‘Oh, so you’re saying we should go out and start killing them, no?’ — I’m saying the government should. They won’t, but they should.”

“You say, ‘Oh, I can’t believe you, you’re horrible. You’re a backwards neanderthal of a person.’ Is that what you’re calling scripture? Is God a neanderthal, backwards in his morality? Is it His word or not? If it’s His word, he commanded it. It’s His idea, not mine. And I’m not ashamed of it.”

“He said put them to death,” he continued. “Shall the church drag them in? No, I’m not say that. The church has not been given the power of the sort; the government has. But the government ought to [kill them]. You got a better idea? A better idea than God?”

Listen to Knapp’s entire 1-hour sermon on “The Curse of Homosexuality” here.

Calls to the New Hope Baptist Church were not returned by the time of publication.

Listen to this audio of Pastor Curtis Knapp via Good As You, recorded May 26, 2012. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/05/30/kansas-pastor-calls-on-u-s-government-to-kill-lgbt-people/

Comments

fearthetaliban 2 years, 6 months ago

Fred Phelps is finally getting some competition

RoeDapple 2 years, 6 months ago

I figure if there is a heaven and a hell I will be surprised wherever I end up at who I see there. Or maybe not.

Greg Cooper 2 years, 6 months ago

This is so wrong. The "preacher" who quotes Leviticus as the "word of God" is using words written by ancient MEN who, for whatever reason, deigned to pass of theeir writings as that word. While they may be right, I find it quite a stretch to take a man's word as truth, especially when that word advocates the killing of another. After all, don't the Ten Commandments advise against murder?

The unfortunate thing is that this guy is playing right into the prejudices and ignorance of those who listen to him. So sad, and so wrong.

Fossick 2 years, 6 months ago

"This pastor would probably have to take 1/2 his congregation out to the parking lot under Old Testament Laws and stone them to death for acts of adultery..."

Exactly right. As Paul noted in 1Cor 5, it's not the church's job to judge/condemn/punish those who are outside of it, i.e. non-Christians. But it is the church's job to hold Christians to their own moral standards. That we do not is a scandal and a shame. I guess it's just easier to condemn those who are not sitting in the front row than those who are filling the offering plate.

I wonder how often it occurs to these folks that Jesus was particularly hard on the religious leaders of his day. I suspect that in that sense, the Savior has not changed a whit.

Mixolydian 2 years, 6 months ago

This is one of the most beautiful events related in the Bible to me. "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone. Woman, where are your accusers? Neither do I accuse you."

Of course the stumbling block for many in this story is Jesus' parting words to her, "Go and sin no more."

I think the Seneca pastor would change this story to "Put down your stones, this is the job of the government."

Leslie Swearingen 2 years, 6 months ago

Adultery is a sin because it has very serious consequences which is why Jesus told her not to do it again, but I think he was also speaking to everyone who was there that day. It is breaking a vow and lying to your marriage partner. It causes anger and hate and when people act on those emotions really bad things can happen. It can affect many more people than just the two who are having sex. And, what if the woman becomes pregnant in that situation?

pace 2 years, 6 months ago

no, a sin is not a sin because it has consequences. other wise, no one would get married.

KSense 2 years, 6 months ago

Homosexuality is undoubtedly and completely against the teachings of Jesus Christ but so is killing.

deec 2 years, 6 months ago

Jesus said not one word about homosexuality, so how can it be against his teachings?

Fossick 2 years, 6 months ago

Quite easily. Jesus taught a specific standard (e.g. Matt 19) for behaviors, and therefore all behaviors that do not conform to that standard are "against his teachings." It is silly to pretend that he needed to enumerate every single way people might violate the standard.

ebyrdstarr 2 years, 6 months ago

It just seems like for as big and bad a sin as so many Christians think homosexuality is and for as many other times it is referenced in the bible (indicating it wasn't some as yet unknown concept), Jesus probably woulda said something about it if he really cared about it.

Of course, since there is no historical evidence that this Jesus guy ever even existed, it's kind of hard to pinpoint exactly what he did or did not say. So maybe we should find something a little more concrete to base our policies on.

Fossick 2 years, 6 months ago

"Of course, since there is no historical evidence that this Jesus guy ever even existed..."

Oh, please. Don't bs an historian. You really, really don't want to go there.

ebyrdstarr 2 years, 6 months ago

Then prove it. Go on. Don't just tell me I'm full of it (which I'm not). Try to prove me wrong.

Dollars to donuts I can guess the first three pieces of proof you will claim and that even though they are widely acknowledged to be forgeries, even among Christian apologists, you will claim them as proof.

The fact is that the preeminent historian of the time Jesus allegedly lived and who was in that region at the time Jesus allegedly preached and died never once mentioned him. (Except in a translation from a century or two later that everyone admits is a forgery.)

Crazy_Larry 2 years, 6 months ago

Haven't you read any of the words Jesus wrote and left behind? Nope? Surely there were historians from Jesus' time on Earth who wrote about him... Nope? Hmmm. Very interesting.

ebyrdstarr 2 years, 6 months ago

How about just anything from eyewitnesses to Jesus' exploits? Even the bible can't offer that.

KSense 2 years, 6 months ago

Obviously internet pornography didn't exist then because they didn't have internet but the principle and reason for avoiding it in any form is still there. For example Matthew 5:27 & 28. "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." The same can also be applied towards a woman lusting after a man.

John Kyle 2 years, 6 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Stuart Evans 2 years, 6 months ago

Jesus was about as real a figure as Han Solo. Basing your life on the story will leave you with a whole lot of contradictions.

pace 2 years, 6 months ago

Jesus chased the money lenders, didn't say anything about gay people.

jafs 2 years, 6 months ago

Since Leviticus is in the OT, Jesus didn't have anything to do with it.

And, it's remarkable to me that so many focus on one thing in that book, while ignoring a huge number of other things.

Also, of course, the OT is pretty much the Jewish Bible, and the NT is about Jesus' teachings, which often differ greatly from OT content, in the direction of love, forgiveness, grace, etc. rather than punishment/condemnation.

You'd think that Christians, who follow Christ, might pick up on that difference.

Fossick 2 years, 6 months ago

"...rather than punishment/condemnation."

Jesus is a complex figure who preached love where it was necessary, but also condemnation/repentance where he thought that was necessary:

Woe to you, lawyers! for you have taken away the key of knowledge: you did not enter in yourselves, and you keep others from entering. -- Luke 11:52

Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon, which have been done in you, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. But it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, which are today exalted to heaven, you shall be thrust down to hell. -- Luke 10:13-15.

But woe to you who are rich! You have received your consolation. Woe to you who are full! You shall hunger. Woe to you that laugh now! You shall mourn and weep. Woe to you when all men shall speak well of you! So did their fathers to the false prophets. -- Luke 6:24-26

Jesus first recorded sermon begins, "Repent." Such a command presumes that people are choosing to do evil things and that they need to turn away from it.

One major problem is that we moderns think of "love" as "don't make anyone feel bad," or "accept people the way they are." Tell someone that they ought not do x, and their response is "Stop judging / hating me," not because you are, but because they don't want to be made to feel bad about themselves or their actions.

Jesus wanted what was best for people even if it made them feel bad. In fact, he tried on purpose to make certain people feel bad in order to get them to change their behavior. He embarrassed them in public. He condemned their whole city. but he did it to get people to change, not because he enjoyed feeling superior to them. He didn't hate lawyers; he wanted lawyers to do better because it was in their best interest to do so. Jesus' teaching was far more complex than "judge not," and ought to be treated that way.

jafs 2 years, 6 months ago

I notice that all of your citations are from Luke - any from any other of the Gospels?

If not, then perhaps Luke (or whoever actually wrote that Gospel) distorted his teachings a bit, as people tend to do, from their own perspective.

The story of the woman caught in adultery is a clear example of the difference between OT and Jesus' teachings - he doesn't condemn her, and exhorts the crowd not to either, unless someone is without sin.

My reading of the Gospels suggests that Jesus didn't want people to feel bad at all - he wanted them to feel good. Of course he also wanted them to do good as well - that's why he ends the adultery story with "go forth and sin no more".

Any comment on the fact that Leviticus contains numerous other examples of forbidden activities, all of which the anti-gay folks ignore?

Fossick 2 years, 6 months ago

Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you. 23 And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. 24 But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee. Matt 11:21-24 (KJV)

And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem, 14 And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: 15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables; John 2:13-15 (KJV)

"Any comment on the fact that Leviticus contains numerous other examples of forbidden activities, all of which the anti-gay folks ignore?"

Not really. I don't follow the OT because I'm not Jewish. If you want me to condemn religious leaders, I can't do any better than Jesus did. But I think it's only fair to be fair with all Jesus said rather than our modern Reader's Digest version.

jafs 2 years, 6 months ago

Thanks for the examples.

It's always hard to sort out what to believe are really Christ's teachings, and what's been altered later, as Biblical scholars know.

One well known one thinks that the story of the money changers in the temple was clearly added later, due to growing anti-Semitic feeling

The comment from Matthew is pretty identical to the one from Luke - maybe that's a sign it's true, maybe not.

There are many passages illustrating Jesus' teachings on love, forgiveness, grace, healing, etc. though, as I'm sure you know.

Crazy_Larry 2 years, 6 months ago

Do Jews and Christians worship the same god?

Lisa Medsker 2 years, 6 months ago

Actually, I wonder if anyone worships the same god. There are such conflicting ideas about "what God meant when he wrote that" and "what God thinks about ___", purported by so many who claim to have a direct line on what God meant or what God thinks, that they can't all possibly be the same guy...

blindrabbit 2 years, 6 months ago

This isn't a religious thing, it is a control thing. Another old white man trying to foist his backwards, narrowminded, bigoted beliefs on a bunch of gullible right wingers! A truly Kansas tradition, welcome to Brownbackistan!

Patricia Davis 2 years, 6 months ago

Time for this church to lose tax exempt status. It's a cult not a church.

JustNoticed 2 years, 6 months ago

I think Jesus was so full of love that he just had to be bisexual - had to be. And glory to him for it.

ProfessorSeamus 2 years, 6 months ago

You can read the full, long winded version of my thoughts at www.centerfieldpolitics.blogspot.com if you are bored. Short version - this is wrong. Those of us that disagree with this expression of hatred have a duty to speak up and say it is wrong.

blindrabbit 2 years, 6 months ago

More good P.R. for Kansas and it's quest for relevance in a modern world!

Dorothy and ToTo! and "Your not in Kansas Anymore" Fred Phelps Kris Kobach Phill Klein Goat Gland Doctor Public Schools and Evolution by Steve Abrams Smilin Sam from Brownbackistan No State Art's funding Flat and featurless Speaker Mike O'Neal Shooting Illegal border crossers from helicopters No National Parks Bigoted as you Might Expect Tornadoes Home of the Koch-A-Kolas No Natural Lakes; ponds, ditches and Sloughs don't count K-U Football and K-State Basketball Lawrence--27 Square Miles of Reality.... Surrounded by Kansas

GardenMomma 2 years, 6 months ago

Actually, Kansas does have a national park. It's called the Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve. It's pretty cool. It's no Grand Canyon, Yosemite, or Yellowstone, but it's pretty cool nonetheless.

http://www.nps.gov/tapr/index.htm

Fossick 2 years, 6 months ago

"Then prove it. Go on. Don't just tell me I'm full of it (which I'm not). Try to prove me wrong."

You said "there is no historical evidence that this Jesus guy ever even existed," which statement is either true or false. There is either historical evidence, or there is not.

I would actually start with a quote from Lawrence's own Bert R. Erhman - no fundamentalist, he - who writes that "This does not mean, as is now being claimed with alarming regularity, that Jesus never existed. He certainly existed, as, Christian or non-Christian, agrees, based on clear and certain evidence. " Even agnostics will admit that "virtually every competent scholar of antiquity" believes that Jesus existed. I'm starting with that to illustrate that you are not simply up against me, but against all of modern scholarship. If you think they base that conclusion upon nothing, then you are free to do so. But it's rather like a high school creationist who claims to a biologist that there is no evidence for evolution.

However, is there historical evidence? Of course there is. Just as you know what I'll present, I already know how you'll try to explain it away. But we shall do the dance anyway. All I need is one piece to show your claim false.

Doubtless you'll find fault with the Testimonium Flavianum, however, Josephus' description of the death of James, whom he calls "brother of Jesus, who was called Christ" (Antiquities 20.9.1) is evidence of the existence of Jesus, and is accepted by the vast majority of historical scholars as such.

Even the Secular Web notes of the passage, "However, while there is some reason to believe that this second passage is a fabrication, there is not enough evidence to definitely conclude this." It exists in every copy of Jopephus, is not pro-Christian, and, unless one holds a prior commitment to the non-existence of Jesus, one cannot conclude that it is a fabrication.

If it's not a fabrication, then it is historical evidence of the existence of Jesus.

ebyrdstarr 2 years, 6 months ago

It is a gross misstatement to say that all competent scholars agree that Jesus as written of and described in the bible certainly existed. They do not. There is unquestionably agreement that he might have and that many individuals claiming to be the Christ existed. But there is no independent evidence that Jesus of Nazareth ever lived. There is no record of his preaching contemporaneous to his teaching. There is not one historian of the time who mention his trial and death.

The Josephus claim is not substantial evidence at all. As I'm sure you know, the Antiquities were written in 93/94, so roughly 60 years after the alleged death of this Jesus fellow and several decades after Paul's letters and at least one or more of the Gospels. It is not contemporaneous evidence of the actual existence of the actual Jesus of Nazareth as described in the bible.

And honestly if the Jesus story were true, shouldn't it have warranted much, much more mention in Josephus' works than that? I maintain that there is no evidence that proves that Jesus of Nazareth existed. I, like most people, accept that there were many guys like Jesus and that one of them may even have been named Jesus. But the historical record does not support the claim that this specific Jesus existed and lived the life described in the gospels.

Fossick 2 years, 6 months ago

"It is a gross misstatement to say that all competent scholars agree that Jesus as written of and described in the bible certainly existed."

I didn't say that. I said that virtually every competent scholar believes that Jesus existed. You said there was no evidence of his existence at all. It's simply not true. You can posit another Jesus to get around the evidence*, I suppose, but such speculations are far less convincing than what you are attempting to discount.

"The Josephus claim is not substantial evidence at all." That's a subjective argument to be sure. Josephus wrote in early 90s, James died in the early 60s, so 30 years later. If 30 years is too long, then no book about Ingrid Bergman or Bess Truman written today can be 'substantial.' Your rules - you've got to live by them.

I wonder, however, whether you are so eager to discount all historical evidence, or only evidence that you do not like? Historians would not get very far into the past if we approached our subject as you do.

  • Homer was not written by Homer, either, but by another Greek of the same name.

ebyrdstarr 2 years, 6 months ago

One mention by one historian that some guy's brother was called the Christ is simply not evidence in support of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth or of the Jesus story of the gospels. It is evidence that there was a guy who people called the Christ, I grant you that. No question. But it's pretty thin evidence, you must admit. Or at least any credible historian must admit. And it's so thin and all you've got that I am comfortable saying that there's no evidence the Jesus of the bible existed.

Your claim about no book can now be written about figures who died 30 years ago, or even 2000 years ago, sounds good on the surface, but holds no water. There is ample historical record from which to piece together their life stories just as there is evidence from which to piece together Julius Ceasar's life. But there is no such record for the bible's Jesus except for the bible itself. But of course that doesn't count any more than the Book of Mormon counts as evidence that the Angel Moroni existed. It is hardly outrageous of me or a sign that I simply discount evidence I do not like to require evidence outside of the religion urging me to believe its fantastic tales.

Having done more research on this than you probably give me credit for, I maintain there is no evidence Jesus of Nazareth ever existed.

Fossick 2 years, 6 months ago

"But it's pretty thin evidence, you must admit."

If it was the only piece, I would gladly admit it. However, you know as well as I that it is not all, and that we could go for many rounds back and forth.

The question is not "is this all?" but "Is this sufficient to show that your claim that there was no evidence Jesus existed to be false?" And it is, for all it takes is one piece of evidence to break a universal negative. That's why it's so foolish to argue universal negatives.

You have likely not done more research that I give you credit for, but there is one assertion that proves you have done less research than you give yourself credit for. You use the following statement - "There is ample historical record from which to piece together their life stories ... [b]ut there is no such record for the bible's Jesus except for the bible itself." - to discount Josephus' claim about James, an event a mere 30 years prior to his book.

Herein you err in presuming that because we do not have such a record today, Josephus did not have such a record then. He mentions at least a dozen (maybe more) historians whose works we do not have today. Tacitus, Dio, and every other historian of the period (nay, of any period) relied on works we do not have today. He describes dozens of events for which he is the only source, and I suspect you would have no argument with the vast majority of them. Because we cannot reconstruct all their sources, it does not mean we can discount what they say whenever we want. We do not get to discount them without good reason.

Your problem is not that you are basing your opinion upon evidence, but that you are discounting evidence that does not match your opinion. It's a very lonely - and nugatory - road, and I leave you to it.

ebyrdstarr 2 years, 6 months ago

I do not know that there is other evidence of Jesus' actual life and death. That snippet by Josephus is the one, and only one, piece of evidence aside from the books of the bible that provides any evidence at all for his existence. You have not cited more, though you claim you could if you wanted to, because you have none.

Bart Ehrman himself agrees that there is not one shred of evidence from the first century. Not one record of a trial, a birth, an execution, an arrest, a sermon, odd goings on. Nothing. (How he then accepts on faith that Jesus did exist is beyond me.) And if Josephus had such a record, why on earth didn't he write about it? For a messianic Jew to hear wondrous tales of the messiah finally come to fulfill the ancient prophecy, wouldn't you think he would have written about it in his comprehensive history? Seems mighty, mighty odd that he left that out. Unless, of course, there was no historical record of any of it, as there is not now.

And, of course, the idea that Josephus' snippet about Jesus having been called the christ is nearly universally accepted doesn't jibe with the sources I have. We know another portion of Josephus was tampered with to bolster the Jesus story, a tampering that occurred some century or two after he wrote the Antiquities. Many scholars, despite your claim to the contrary, also suspect the reference to the brother of James was also tampering. True, it is in the earliest editions, but the earliest editions are still from some period of time after Josephus actually wrote. And if you've studied this period of time, you know that forgeries and "alterations" of text were fairly common practice.

Clearly, even if the Josephus snippet was written by Josephus in 94 C.E., it is in no way, shape, or form sufficient record from which to say anything whatsoever about this guy named Jesus. But, sure, I'll concede I shouldn't have said "no" evidence; I should have said the historical record outside of the books of the bible do not support that the Jesus of Nazareth of the bible was a real person who ever lived. Surely you can concede that the lone, sad little Josephus snippet does not counter that claim one bit.

Oh, but no, you won't, because you have all this other evidence. Lots and lots of it. You just won't share it with the group because I'm too cynical and skeptical and not worth convincing. Keep telling yourself and others all day long that's why you're keeping all this precious "evidence" to yourself. You and I both know the real truth is your "evidence" doesn't exist.

pizzapete 2 years, 6 months ago

It's interesting that Jesus gets such a small mention by Josephus considering the importance of his life in modern society. It does seem to suggest that there was a guy named Jesus that lived at that time, but there is no mention of his being a savior, prophet, son of god, or anthing other than an ordinary man. But no worries, we can look to Joseph Smith as a more contemporary source of proof for Jesus' existence as he spread the faith to the Native Americans after his death. How much more proof do we need?

tomatogrower 2 years, 6 months ago

Is he a Christian or not? I'm tired of all the Christians who practice their religion from the Old Testament. Aren't they suppose to follow the New Testament? Jesus said judging others was bad.

asixbury 2 years, 6 months ago

Frankly, who cares what anyone's religion says about homosexuality or their right to get married. This is the government we're talking about; the government should not discriminate against homosexuals because of some people's religious beliefs. No one is saying Christians must support gay marriage or participate in any way. We're saying homosexuals should have the right to get married to the person they love, just as heterosexuals have the right. If you don't like it, don't do it. Just because they have the right does not mean Christians support homosexuality. Living in a secular society requires a give and take. It seems some Christians cannot wrap their heads around the fact that we live in a democracy, not a theocracy!

Crazy_Larry 2 years, 6 months ago

"Remember: Jesus would rather shame gays than let orphans have a family" (a source)

Pastor_Bedtime 2 years, 6 months ago

But remember, any opposition to this zealot is anti-Christian bigotry.

blindrabbit 2 years, 6 months ago

You are never going prove the Jesus story to the satisfaction of everyone. Anyway, who really cares, the story is about a nutcase preacher in Seneca, Kansas who if further disgracing the reputation of the State. Further proof of "Whats the Matter With Kansas" and the influence of our "C-Street Governor".

Fossick 2 years, 6 months ago

ebyrdstarr: "Surely you can concede that the lone, sad little Josephus snippet does not counter that claim one bit."

Of course I'll concede it - I chose that one little Josephus quote because it unarguably falsified your original claim, not because it addressed a wholly new claim you brought in later. As you have admitted that your original claim can no longer stand, I consider that closed.

But you might remember way back when you said, "Dollars to donuts I can guess the first three pieces of proof you will claim..." You knew then I had plenty. Now you're pretending I have but one? Bad form, Peter. (from a source)

So shall we move on? Would you prefer to discuss Tacitus? Acts? The Ante-Nicene fathers? The Roman monuments? Nero's blaming of the 64ad fire of Rome on Christians? The Talmud? The problem is that "the sources [you] have" are not all the sources. It's also likely that I'm just as familiar with your sources as you are.

Erdman*, the "Doctor of Disbelief" who has a cute little Darwin fish on his website, accepts the historicity of Jesus because he's read more and wider sources than you. It's not a matter of faith, but a matter of the preponderance of historical evidence. That's what you're fighting in this quixotic tilting at Jesus-myth windmills.

But perhaps we should begin with your words on the Testimonium Flavium. At first you say, "if Josephus had such a record, why on earth didn't he write about it? " Then when addressing the documentary evidence that he did exactly that, you say, "We know another portion of Josephus was tampered with to bolster the Jesus story, a tampering that occurred some century or two after he wrote the Antiquities..."

So where is your documentary proof** that the Testimonium Flavium was "tampered with to bolster the Jesus story"? It's time for you to present the actual historical evidence of your assertions, for a change. Remember, we're looking for documentary proof, the same kind you ask of me, and the same kind I'll provide lots and lots more of if you continue to ask so nicely.

Extra Credit: As it is historically demonstrable that the very survival of Josephus' complete works was the doing of Christians and not Jews, for what possible reason would the Christians have preserved those works if Josephus' mentions of Jesus did not occur in the originals?

  • Whose middle initial I originally mistyped. ** By which I mean actual, real second, third, and fourth-century documents, not speculations about what Josephus ought to have written instead, or who should have mentioned it but did not.

ebyrdstarr 2 years, 6 months ago

The fact that I knew which pieces of "evidence" you would cite does not mean those claims are valid or at all credible. They are not.

Surely you jest when suggesting that the fact that Christians preserved Josephus is proof that the one snippet is proof of the truth of Jesus. The early church is who tampered with Josephus.

Fossick 2 years, 6 months ago

"The early church is who tampered with Josephus."

Yes, that's exactly the assertion that I'm asking you to provide actual, real, documentary proof of, from the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th centuries, or whenever you assert that it took place.

Not opinions, the same historical proof you ask of me.

ebyrdstarr 2 years, 6 months ago

The proof is that the highly-disputed paragraph of Josephus, which to your credit you didn't claim, is linguistically easily distinguishable from Josephus' writing. Once we know that Christians at some point tampered with Josephus to bolster the Christian claim, we have to look st the other textual piece of evidence, the snippet from book 20, chapter 9, with some concern. Given that there is no other reference in all of Josephus to this Messiah he and his people were waiting for, the one snippet carries even less weight.

But I am confident you have heard all this before and have dismissed every person who has pointed out all of this to you before. The fact is that if Jesus really had lived and died as described in the bible, there would be real evidence of it and we would not have to quibble about how much weight to give this one, disputed snippet from Josephus.

Fossick 2 years, 6 months ago

Since for the second time now you have not provided any documentary proof, but the baldest of assertions, I can only conclude that you have no documentary proof. And yet you believe it nonetheless. Weird, no? What did you call that, faith?

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Still, it's amazing how quickly your demand for literary proof disappears when it comes to an assertion that fits your opinion.

Well, it's not really amazing, if you think about it.

ebyrdstarr 2 years, 6 months ago

What documentary proof would satisfy you? Would you like a bibliography of the works by G.A. Wells and R. Hoffman and Michael Martin and Robert Miller and Robert M. Price. Oh, and don't forget Albert Schweitzer. The list of works is too long to include here, but since you're such a historian yourself, you ought to know perfectly well what I'm talking about. If you would like the complete bibliography of sources I am working from, I would be happy to email it to you.

And once again, I can't help but notice that you don't even pretend to offer any of this other clear evidence that you claim to have. So, my claim that there is no historical, first century evidence outside of the works of the bible for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth can't be conclusively proven because you can't prove a negative. But if I'm wrong and there IS evidence, it ought to be remarkably easy to prove me wrong. Your sole and only attempt to prove me wrong is 4 words from one of the most comprehensive historical texts of antiquity, a 4 word snippet that is disputed. Which from a logic standpoint really only bolsters my claim because if the events of the bible and the person it described really had existed, the preeminent historical scribe of the era would have written about it. The fact that he didn't speaks volumes.

You offer no other proof (because you can't), but you bluster and attack me and claim it's all my failure to produce documentary proof of my assertions.

The fact is that all Greek and Roman records of that time period are utterly and totally devoid of any mention of a guy named Jesus who was executed after claiming to be the son of god and the messiah.

I am not a person of faith. Not at all. I am a person who looks for evidence. On this point, of whether Jesus of Nazareth actually lived and died as described in the bible, there is none. None.

gudpoynt 2 years, 6 months ago

Pastor Knapp has no idea how sexy he sounds when he get's all Bible-righteous.

I don't know nuthin bout no baby-holocaustin', but THIS child of Sodom can sure feel the fire all the way down in my throbbin' brimstones! Yowzah!

blindrabbit 2 years, 6 months ago

Fossick and ebyrdstarr: Boy this story has given you'all a good shot at some old tyme mental masturbation at the expense of others. E nough of this crap that cannot be proven not only because of lack of evidence but because of two ostrichs with formed intransigent positions. Again, the story is about a whacked-out, bigoted Seneca whipping up his congregation of like-minded's about some civil rights issues that besmirch their antiquated beliefs.

Pastor_Bedtime 2 years, 6 months ago

Taxpayer-funded hate speech from another Christian Supremacist. Not a big surprise.

Fossick 2 years, 6 months ago

blindrabbit: "E nough of this crap that cannot be proven not only because of lack of evidence but because of two ostrichs with formed intransigent positions."

On the contrary, we are making great progress. Sure, it's slow going, but we ought to be careful. Besides, another comment calling that pastor a poopyhead hardly adds to the discussion, no?

But look what we have established simply by agreeing on Antiquities 20.9.1. There was a man named Jesus who widely referred to as "Christ," living within decades of 62 ad, probably in Judea, maybe in Jerusalem. This man had a brother named James who was executed by Jewish religious authorities, implying that his 'crime' was a religious one against Judaism rather than a regular crime against Rome. Sure, we are a long way from Easter, but we surely have established the "No evidence" theory to be false. Since we also have the works of the Apostolic Fathers, who believed that James died from being thrown off the temple, we have also added another buttress to Josephus' claim of independence.

ebyrdstarr: "What documentary proof would satisfy you?"

I told you what proof: exactly what you ask from me, a contemporary document that establishes your contention that the early church changed Josephus. If you don't have one, then an admission that you are willing to believe a Professor of German (Wells), on faith, when he talks about historical events for which there is no documentation.

However, since it appears you'd like to move on, I present Tacitus Annals 15:4:

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular."

Tacitus, Roman Senator and Historian, wrote Annals and Histories, which cover the reigns of Claudius 14ad on through the death of Domitian in 96. His work is generally accepted as absolute best Roman historical writing we have. So I look forward to you telling the class why the best Roman historian, who asserts that Christ was executed by Pilate in the same Judea that the Jewish leadership executed his bother, does not mean what we think it means.

Leslie Swearingen 2 years, 6 months ago

LOL In one of the movies Spock's brother hijacks the Enterprise and takes in across the universe in a search for God. The brother has been given the coordinates. When they get there, what do they find? Not God but a monster who has been stranded there and needs transportation.

Kathy Getto 2 years, 6 months ago

I just love this verse, Fossick: "But woe to you who are rich! You have received your consolation. Woe to you who are full! You shall hunger. Woe to you that laugh now! You shall mourn and weep. Woe to you when all men shall speak well of you! So did their fathers to the false prophets. -- Luke 6:24-26 "

Guess Brownback, the Kochs, et al, aren't quite Christan enough, huh?

Fossick 2 years, 6 months ago

I suspect that compared to the crowd Jesus was addressing, all of us Americans are rich and full, laugh a lot, and have people speak well of us. Just sayin'.

Kathy Getto 2 years, 6 months ago

So, is this how one should interpret a bible verse? I am sure you are correct, Fossick, but that isn't what the verse is about, now is it?

Fossick 2 years, 6 months ago

"So, is this how one should interpret a bible verse?"

I had that exact same question myself.

ebyrdstarr 2 years, 6 months ago

Tacitus' work is describing who the Christians are. I find it hard to consider this piece, written sometime after 117 C.E., as proof that Jesus of Nazareth was a real figure, but as proof of what the Christian claim was. Again, there exist actual public records from the time of Pilate himself, but no mention of this Jesus guy then. The whole Tacitus passage is troubling because it actually doesn't square with what we know of history. At the time of Nero's reign, there weren't Christians in any number in Rome, nor was the term Christian in use at that time. Nero persecuted Jews. Tacitus might have had a fact-checking problem (as I'm sure fact-checking and sourcing were a lot harder in the second century than they are now).

Further, the entire passage is nearly word-for-word from the writings of Sulpicius Severus in the 4th century, a writing which is filled with other myths and legends lacking historical accuracy, but was never quoted as being a Tacitus passage in the second century. Again, we know we have a regular practice in these early centuries of scribes adding passages, changing words, etc. So again, the fact that the nearly exact passage occurs in someone else's writings, a writer who was not known for historical accuracy, raises questions about the legitimacy of this passage.

Leslie Swearingen 2 years, 6 months ago

Oh,yes there is, we have never needed comedy more.

verity 2 years, 6 months ago

I should have said that Comedy Central no longer needs writers---who would think to make this stuff up?

yourworstnightmare 2 years, 6 months ago

Nothing in Tacitus's account about Jesus being zombie-fied (raising from the dead) and doing his zombie magic on all of his followers.

Did Jesus exist? Probably. There is physical and historical evidence.

It is a fallacy to jump from existing to being the son of god and savior of humanity.

What does Tacitus say about that?

Fossick 2 years, 6 months ago

"There is physical and historical evidence."

Yes, and I think we can all agree that we have come a long way since this particular sideshow began with the statement, "there is no historical evidence that this Jesus guy ever even existed." So long as we are agreed, I suppose we can bring this seemingly interminable discussion to an end. If ebyrdstarr wants to argue that you are incorrect, then I will leave him in your capable hands.

"It is a fallacy to jump from existing to being the son of god and savior of humanity"

Absolutely. I exist, yet I am not the savior of humanity, QED. But that's not remotely what I was trying to demonstrate, and so I'll leave that where it lies.

ebyrdstarr 2 years, 6 months ago

What on earth physical evidence are you claiming? The fact is that no Roman or Greek records from the first century make any mention of a guy named Jesus who claimed to be the son of god and was executed. And there are lots of records from that time period. I don't know why this total absence of evidence doesn't trouble more people.

No doubt Paul existed. And the group he traveled with. And clearly the christian myth started somewhere. But there's just no historical evidence that any of the stories in the gospel happened or that the person described therein ever actually walked the earth. No birth or death records, no arrest records, no record of a trial.

Yes, it is entirely possible there was really a guy named Jesus, maybe even son to a guy named Joseph and brother to a guy named James. But to say that he definitively did exist or that it's even probable just doesn't square with the historical record we have.

yourworstnightmare 2 years, 6 months ago

The point is it doesn't matter if jesus existed. Anything beyond his simple existence is a fiction.

Augustus existed. The story is he was the son of gods. We are all atheists when it comes to Augustus's divinity.

Fossick 2 years, 6 months ago

ebyrdstarr: "Again, there exist actual public records from the time of Pilate himself, but no mention of this Jesus guy then... And there are lots of records from that time period. I don't know why this total absence of evidence doesn't trouble more people."

OK, one and I'll let it go, this time I double-dog promise.

Can you look into these records for us and retrieve three pieces of information for us?

1) When and where was Pilate born? 2) What was his official title and salary as a government official in Judea? 3) When and where did Pilate die?

If the records are so good, this ought to take like 3 seconds. Find them and I'll agree that the lack of official Roman records for Jesus is troublesome. If such records do not exist, then I suggest you broaden your sources. Fair enough?

Fossick 2 years, 6 months ago

OK, since it looks like we won't get an answer, I'll leave it for posterity. The only public record of the existence of Pontius Pilate was not found until 1961, in the form of the Pilate Stone, in which his name was carved into limestone as part of a building dedication in Ceasarea. That's it. There are no birth records, death records, public records of any kind for the governor of the province. And we're supposed to worry that the same records do not exist for an itinerant country preacher, and a non-citizen, from that province?

Pilate is mentioned in about 4 places in all of ancient literature. The gospels/NT, Josephus, Philo (a Jewish philosopher livingin Alexandria, Egypt), and the above Tacitus mention. That's it. And yet there is not a single historian of the period who will deny the existence of Pilate.

The operative problem is the statement "And there are lots of records from that time period." There aren't. There is almost nothing from that period. Every piece of literature we have from the first century could fit on a bookshelf about 2 feet wide. Proving the existence of anyone using ebyrdstarr's approach would be nearly impossible. That's why historians don't work that way.

gl0ck0wn3r 2 years, 6 months ago

More evidence of why gay folk ought to be pro-concealed carry.

yourworstnightmare 2 years, 6 months ago

Yep, and under "stand your ground", this pastor's words could be considered direct threats.

And we know what "stand your ground" allows if you are threatened.

woodscolt 2 years, 6 months ago

It might be nice if someone would just take these nuts out for the safety of the rest of the people but then your reminded that it would take a nut to do this and their all on the same team with this nut. (and brownback and Kobach and kline the legislature and on and on.......)

pace 2 years, 6 months ago

You guys all call for smaller government until you think of a service you would like. I don't think calling this preacher a radical left is fair. While he does sound like a socialist, don't your think he is really a commie?

jafs 2 years, 6 months ago

Wow!

You really have no comment on his suggestion that the government should kill gay people other than that?

I guess that's not any sort of judgment or attack coming from a religious figure.

Should I conclude from your lack of criticism of this preacher that you support his views?

Pastor_Bedtime 2 years, 6 months ago

So you support the actions and viewpoint your cronie in Seneca? Not a surprise.

Pastor_Bedtime 2 years, 6 months ago

BAA, 2,000 in Seneca is a pretty big number when you consider how few people are left out there in that part of the state. The story is definitely newsworthy, unless your agenda dictates that the truth be supressed. I'll bet that there are folks in Seneca who don't agree with this nutjob but who know if they speak out they'll be included in the wave of violence the sheeple's master is advocating. And Knapp may very well find himself complicit in any violence yet to come. Bet he's not a Democrat ~ even though he's doing a great job stumping for them, because the reaction against his viewpoint wil prove to outweigh by far any support he may receive. And this, BAA, is something you too should remember, as you're proving to be one of the strongest recruiters the Dems have seen around here lately.

woodscolt 2 years, 6 months ago

You called it bornagain. you think that criticizing this pastor is as you post "

"......an assault on Christians and traditional America!"

Here in lies the problem Baa. You and to many people have the radical idea that you know what Christians and traditional America is. Let me clue you in. You have no idea what traditional america or what christianity should be. Sad but true.

woodscolt 2 years, 6 months ago

Yes, I do in fact. You established by your comment once again that your trumped up fake patriotism and pretend religion is only used to support your fake values. And your claim to what traditional America is as fake as all the rest of you.

jafs 2 years, 6 months ago

So, you believe that Christianity includes wanting the government to kill gay people?

And that's in line with Christ's teaching and purpose?

pace 2 years, 6 months ago

Now, should I start a campaign for the government to kill crazy preachers, so the state will stay even? Hear me, I am not saying we should kill crazy preachers, we should either have the govenment do it or hire a pryvatized service. if you all think this is making just another govenment departmental thingee. .

pace 2 years, 6 months ago

Stop, stop, I changed my mind, Dear govment, I have changed my mind, you don't need to kill crazy preachers. If you could instead insert (xxx) moneylenders, just the bad one. Kill them. and put a check off on my taxes to pay for the cost, One for money lenders, one for crazy preacher and one for ducks. I like duck.

Ron Holzwarth 2 years, 6 months ago

Do I understand this right? Pastor Curtis Knapp wants gay people to be killed, but he never mentioned Charles Manson, who is alive and well in prison?

Commenting has been disabled for this item.