Spot:-6
It would seem that both you and I have the same view of the Bible. Happily I am in a church that also takes the same view.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Far Rider wrote: You have the testimony of Joshua, you refuse to belive it. Why should God give you anymore special consideration than any of us, what makes you so speacial?
Nothing makes me special Far Rider. I can prove I'm not special, just a normal human being. I wouldn't call a mass murdering fantasist "righteous". Now, that takes something special.
Nothing makes me special Far Rider. I can prove I'm not special, just a normal human being. I wouldn't call a mass murdering fantasist "righteous". Now, that takes something special.
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Gaius:-6
I'm late answering your question about how I feel about the changes in the Bible. No, I'm not angry. That is the hand we've been dealt so that is the hand we have to play.
The greatest changes made to the autographs were done during the first 400 years. Some changes were made by accident as in natural scribal error and some were made deliberately to make the Bible say what the scribe wanted it to say.
The problem that faces modern translators is that we do not have the original. We have copies of copies of copies of copies. There are thousands of existing manuscripts of the New Testament. Now anomgst those manuscripts there are over 400 000 varieations. That means that no manuscript is untouched. Apparently the KJV was made using highly inferior manuscripts. We cannot get bact to the originals. We can only hope to get back to the ones that were ultimately used to put together the first New Testament.
Bronwen wants documentation: "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart D. Ehrman. It has an excellent index at the back as well as a good set of notes containing a good bibliography.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I'm late answering your question about how I feel about the changes in the Bible. No, I'm not angry. That is the hand we've been dealt so that is the hand we have to play.
The greatest changes made to the autographs were done during the first 400 years. Some changes were made by accident as in natural scribal error and some were made deliberately to make the Bible say what the scribe wanted it to say.
The problem that faces modern translators is that we do not have the original. We have copies of copies of copies of copies. There are thousands of existing manuscripts of the New Testament. Now anomgst those manuscripts there are over 400 000 varieations. That means that no manuscript is untouched. Apparently the KJV was made using highly inferior manuscripts. We cannot get bact to the originals. We can only hope to get back to the ones that were ultimately used to put together the first New Testament.
Bronwen wants documentation: "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart D. Ehrman. It has an excellent index at the back as well as a good set of notes containing a good bibliography.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
For those who think the Bible is just a book of old stories and myths etc. It is. There is some history there but very little.
However, something does not have to be historically true to present profound truths about God. On that basis I can say the Bible is "true" in that it does present profound truths concerning God and man.
The Bible becomes for Christians the "Word of God" not by virtue of its authorship but by virtue of the fact that God does speak to us through the Bible.
Shalom
Ted:-6
However, something does not have to be historically true to present profound truths about God. On that basis I can say the Bible is "true" in that it does present profound truths concerning God and man.
The Bible becomes for Christians the "Word of God" not by virtue of its authorship but by virtue of the fact that God does speak to us through the Bible.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Ted wrote: For those who think the Bible is just a book of old stories and myths etc. It is. There is some history there but very little.
However, something does not have to be historically true to present profound truths about God. On that basis I can say the Bible is "true" in that it does present profound truths concerning God and man.
The Bible becomes for Christians the "Word of God" not by virtue of its authorship but by virtue of the fact that God does speak to us through the Bible.
Shalom
Ted:-6
It’s always seemed to me that a modernist-liberal interpretation of the bible has as many difficulties as the inerrantist’s position.
Of course, the ability to interpret the bible to find the truth avoids the internal contradictions and other problems that plague the fundamentalist’s rigid approach, but if interpretation and the application of midrash are the way to allow the revelation of ‘truth’, where does it stop?
What truths can you find in the bible that cannot be subject to further interpretation? According to the World Christian Encyclopaedia there are over 20,800 Christian denominations, each one with a different interpretation of what constitutes the ‘truth’. So, whose interpretation is the right one Ted? Is gods truth relative? Is there a sliding scale of interpetation from valid to invalid?
You don’t have to be on the Internet long to hear a member of one particular denomination denounce a member of another denomination and confidently declare they are going to hell for not following the ‘true path’.
It seems there are going to be a lot of theists who held their beliefs with the utmost sincerity who will be joining us evil atheists when we meet Satan.
However, something does not have to be historically true to present profound truths about God. On that basis I can say the Bible is "true" in that it does present profound truths concerning God and man.
The Bible becomes for Christians the "Word of God" not by virtue of its authorship but by virtue of the fact that God does speak to us through the Bible.
Shalom
Ted:-6
It’s always seemed to me that a modernist-liberal interpretation of the bible has as many difficulties as the inerrantist’s position.
Of course, the ability to interpret the bible to find the truth avoids the internal contradictions and other problems that plague the fundamentalist’s rigid approach, but if interpretation and the application of midrash are the way to allow the revelation of ‘truth’, where does it stop?
What truths can you find in the bible that cannot be subject to further interpretation? According to the World Christian Encyclopaedia there are over 20,800 Christian denominations, each one with a different interpretation of what constitutes the ‘truth’. So, whose interpretation is the right one Ted? Is gods truth relative? Is there a sliding scale of interpetation from valid to invalid?
You don’t have to be on the Internet long to hear a member of one particular denomination denounce a member of another denomination and confidently declare they are going to hell for not following the ‘true path’.
It seems there are going to be a lot of theists who held their beliefs with the utmost sincerity who will be joining us evil atheists when we meet Satan.
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Far Rider wrote: Well done, you shifted the argument away from your accountability and onto a man that righteously followed Gods precise orders. And yes he was ordered to kill women and children, thats called judgement by a creator towards a nation that rejected God. I don't begin to understand it in fact its awful in my opinion, But I'm not God and I don't see all the facts from time and eternity.
And this is what scares the crap out of me regarding religion and some of its followers. You admit it is awful, but as long as the mass slaughter of innocent women and children is by Divine Command, you will accept it. Presumably you accept the killing of innocents by devotees of other religions with the same equanimity.
The Unknown Purpose theodicy effectively means you are abandoning the notion of gods omnibenevolence. If your god commands the murder of innocents for reasons unknown to us, then what grounds do you have for judging him to be morally good? Making that determination requires at least some understanding of his motives and intent. To be consistent you would have to say that you do not know definitely whether your god is good or evil because he works in mysterious ways.
Why is it that you want special despensation above all others to believe.
I don't want any kind of "special dispensation", just some logical, coherent reasons to believe.
If God would just...."add in here what you want"... in your case you want a dead man to return and tell you the truth, when you can go get it in the drawer of any hotel for free.
If your righteous killer did come back from the dead, then I'd have to stop believing that both you and I were inevitably going to be worm food, and take christianity a bit more seriously.
You refuse to believe it, it is not because you can't, it is because you won't. If you truly sught the answer it woudl be there, but your mindset is that you dont want to believe it even if its true.
I don't believe it Far Rider because from the outside it comes across as an illogical incoherent religion based around belief in one Bronze Age deity.
Of course, if you have some valid reasons for me to believe in the existence of the Christian god based on verifiable facts rather than your personal belief, I'd love to hear them, and once you have provided these verifiable facts and I wilfully decline to accept them without giving a reason, then you can accuse me of not believing because I don't want to believe.
But hey that's cool, It is for you and you alone to decide.
Thank you.
And this is what scares the crap out of me regarding religion and some of its followers. You admit it is awful, but as long as the mass slaughter of innocent women and children is by Divine Command, you will accept it. Presumably you accept the killing of innocents by devotees of other religions with the same equanimity.
The Unknown Purpose theodicy effectively means you are abandoning the notion of gods omnibenevolence. If your god commands the murder of innocents for reasons unknown to us, then what grounds do you have for judging him to be morally good? Making that determination requires at least some understanding of his motives and intent. To be consistent you would have to say that you do not know definitely whether your god is good or evil because he works in mysterious ways.
Why is it that you want special despensation above all others to believe.
I don't want any kind of "special dispensation", just some logical, coherent reasons to believe.
If God would just...."add in here what you want"... in your case you want a dead man to return and tell you the truth, when you can go get it in the drawer of any hotel for free.
If your righteous killer did come back from the dead, then I'd have to stop believing that both you and I were inevitably going to be worm food, and take christianity a bit more seriously.
You refuse to believe it, it is not because you can't, it is because you won't. If you truly sught the answer it woudl be there, but your mindset is that you dont want to believe it even if its true.
I don't believe it Far Rider because from the outside it comes across as an illogical incoherent religion based around belief in one Bronze Age deity.
Of course, if you have some valid reasons for me to believe in the existence of the Christian god based on verifiable facts rather than your personal belief, I'd love to hear them, and once you have provided these verifiable facts and I wilfully decline to accept them without giving a reason, then you can accuse me of not believing because I don't want to believe.
But hey that's cool, It is for you and you alone to decide.
Thank you.
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Far Rider wrote: Faith/Belief are one and the same in my humble uneducated opinion. Parse them out and Im sure you can come up with a dazzling difference in somantics.You can call it semantics if you wish. Words have meanings, faith and belief are quite different.
Here's a brief extract from "Living Faith", by Jacques Ellul, just to show that the point I've been making here isn't entirely my own:
Belief provides answers to people's questions while faith never does. People believe so as to find assurance, a solution, an answer to their questions to fashion for themselves a system of beliefs. Faith (biblical faith) is completely different. The purpose of revelation is not to supply us with explanations, but to get us to listen to questions.
Faith is, as Barth so often reminds us, in the first instance, hearing. Belief talks and talks, it wallows in words, it interpolates the gods, it takes the initiative. Faith takes an entirely opposite stance: it waits, remains on guard, picks up signs, knows what to make of the most delicate parables; it listens patiently to the silence until that silence is filled up with what it takes to be the indisputable word of God.
Faith isolates; belief (Christian or otherwise) brings together. We find ourselves joined with others in the same institutional current, all of us oriented toward the same object of belief, sharing the same ideas, following the same rituals, enrolled in the same organization, be it social or religious, speaking the same language. Belief is quite useful for the smooth functioning of society. Belief is the key to the consensus we look for, the one long proclaimed essential of communal life. Faith works in exactly the opposite way. Faith individualizes; it is always an exclusively personal matter. Faith is the personal relationship with a God who reveals Himself as a person.Now, if we can manage to keep the two concepts of belief and of faith distinct, we might have more of a chance of conveying information in this thread.
Here's a brief extract from "Living Faith", by Jacques Ellul, just to show that the point I've been making here isn't entirely my own:
Belief provides answers to people's questions while faith never does. People believe so as to find assurance, a solution, an answer to their questions to fashion for themselves a system of beliefs. Faith (biblical faith) is completely different. The purpose of revelation is not to supply us with explanations, but to get us to listen to questions.
Faith is, as Barth so often reminds us, in the first instance, hearing. Belief talks and talks, it wallows in words, it interpolates the gods, it takes the initiative. Faith takes an entirely opposite stance: it waits, remains on guard, picks up signs, knows what to make of the most delicate parables; it listens patiently to the silence until that silence is filled up with what it takes to be the indisputable word of God.
Faith isolates; belief (Christian or otherwise) brings together. We find ourselves joined with others in the same institutional current, all of us oriented toward the same object of belief, sharing the same ideas, following the same rituals, enrolled in the same organization, be it social or religious, speaking the same language. Belief is quite useful for the smooth functioning of society. Belief is the key to the consensus we look for, the one long proclaimed essential of communal life. Faith works in exactly the opposite way. Faith individualizes; it is always an exclusively personal matter. Faith is the personal relationship with a God who reveals Himself as a person.Now, if we can manage to keep the two concepts of belief and of faith distinct, we might have more of a chance of conveying information in this thread.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Ted wrote: Bronwen wants documentation: "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart D. Ehrman. It has an excellent index at the back as well as a good set of notes containing a good bibliography.Well, I am in the library as I type this and I will look for the book.
The problem with books like this is that they usually begin with a premise, expressed or implied, something like, "I know what nobody else knows' or 'I have the truth and anybody who disagrees is part of a conspiracy'.
With regard to the apochryphal 'gospels', this is pretty much a 'no-brainer' as even a basic literary analysis easily proves most of them to be bogus. Of the lot, the only one I know of that might even approach the possibility of partial authenticity is the Coptic Gospel of Thomas.
There are, however, also some canonical books such as 2 Thessalonians and 2 Peter which can now be reliably dated to the second century AD, and would probably flunk the test for canonicity if that decision were made today.
The problem with books like this is that they usually begin with a premise, expressed or implied, something like, "I know what nobody else knows' or 'I have the truth and anybody who disagrees is part of a conspiracy'.
With regard to the apochryphal 'gospels', this is pretty much a 'no-brainer' as even a basic literary analysis easily proves most of them to be bogus. Of the lot, the only one I know of that might even approach the possibility of partial authenticity is the Coptic Gospel of Thomas.
There are, however, also some canonical books such as 2 Thessalonians and 2 Peter which can now be reliably dated to the second century AD, and would probably flunk the test for canonicity if that decision were made today.
-
olderbutnotwiser
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 2:12 pm
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
There are many people on here who know a hell of a lot more than I do about the Bible, that's for sure.
I've always (well since I was old enough to form an opinion of my own) regarded religion as a means of setting rules and a deity as a means of (seemingly) enforcing those said rules. Most western law is based to a greater or lesser extent on the 10 commandments, not really because they are sent from God, rather because they are a sensible basis for law. The Bible (and the equivalents in other religions) is basically a publication to give credibility to those laws. It's a bit like an adult telling kids that if you don't behave yourself the "Heebie-geebie monster" will get you.
To regard the Bible as an authoritative historical document is obviously not possible, any game of chinese whispers will give you a reason why that's so. To believe in its teachings regarding the existance of God is also something I find difficult, for the most basic of reasons, why is so much evil allowed to exist? To believe in its basic message though, which is, more or less, to be nice to other people, is much easier.
So, I don't believe in the Bible as a historical document, I don't believe in "God" as such, but I do believe in the lifestyle message as regards how I treat my fellow human beings. I might not always live up to it though....:-3
I've always (well since I was old enough to form an opinion of my own) regarded religion as a means of setting rules and a deity as a means of (seemingly) enforcing those said rules. Most western law is based to a greater or lesser extent on the 10 commandments, not really because they are sent from God, rather because they are a sensible basis for law. The Bible (and the equivalents in other religions) is basically a publication to give credibility to those laws. It's a bit like an adult telling kids that if you don't behave yourself the "Heebie-geebie monster" will get you.
To regard the Bible as an authoritative historical document is obviously not possible, any game of chinese whispers will give you a reason why that's so. To believe in its teachings regarding the existance of God is also something I find difficult, for the most basic of reasons, why is so much evil allowed to exist? To believe in its basic message though, which is, more or less, to be nice to other people, is much easier.
So, I don't believe in the Bible as a historical document, I don't believe in "God" as such, but I do believe in the lifestyle message as regards how I treat my fellow human beings. I might not always live up to it though....:-3
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
I take the word of the bible to heart actually. The message of the New Testament is a positive one, its just I don't like the Roman Catholic Church's handling of Christianity or what has happened to the original gospels. I generally dislike organised religion, and I feel that although I am an agnostic I share some of your most cherished beliefs in the human race, the capacity for forgiveness, the ability to love... I'm in love at the moment so...
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
memebias:-6
Whose interpretation? Which one is correct? etc.
There have been relatively unbiased as well as unbiased scholars down through the centuries. One can ultimately believe what one wants. However in interpreting the Bible--trying to get gack to what the authors intended requires a lot of study: the language of the day, the culture of the day, the history to that point, the then fund of knowledge that they had, their conceptualization ability, style of writing, the audience for which it was written, the purpose for when it was written we can come very close to what the authors meant. Believing what they say as a matter of faith is just that. Add to the above list a good dose of good reasoning and we get even closer. Such interpretations are not done just on the spur of the moment but after a great deal of research and discussion with fellow scholars. If you do not understand the style of writing (midrash) then you will get anything from anywhere and everywhere.
Now we are able to compare the Biblical accounts with the archaeological evidence. There are also extral Biblical writings that do help. It seems to me that one should not only read the Bible but also what the great scholars have said down through the years. We ought to make use of the knowledge they have acquired.
Once you have done this, and made use of some of the excellent commentaries you will come to realize that only in some minds is the Bible illogical and incoherent.
As an extra note the Old Testament must be read in light of the New Testament. When you suggest that the modern liberals have as much trouble as the inerrants when it comes to interpreting I cannot agree though the inerrants would argue that point vociferously.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Whose interpretation? Which one is correct? etc.
There have been relatively unbiased as well as unbiased scholars down through the centuries. One can ultimately believe what one wants. However in interpreting the Bible--trying to get gack to what the authors intended requires a lot of study: the language of the day, the culture of the day, the history to that point, the then fund of knowledge that they had, their conceptualization ability, style of writing, the audience for which it was written, the purpose for when it was written we can come very close to what the authors meant. Believing what they say as a matter of faith is just that. Add to the above list a good dose of good reasoning and we get even closer. Such interpretations are not done just on the spur of the moment but after a great deal of research and discussion with fellow scholars. If you do not understand the style of writing (midrash) then you will get anything from anywhere and everywhere.
Now we are able to compare the Biblical accounts with the archaeological evidence. There are also extral Biblical writings that do help. It seems to me that one should not only read the Bible but also what the great scholars have said down through the years. We ought to make use of the knowledge they have acquired.
Once you have done this, and made use of some of the excellent commentaries you will come to realize that only in some minds is the Bible illogical and incoherent.
As an extra note the Old Testament must be read in light of the New Testament. When you suggest that the modern liberals have as much trouble as the inerrants when it comes to interpreting I cannot agree though the inerrants would argue that point vociferously.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
memebias:-6
The kind of validating proof that you seek, stand up in court etc. does not exist. Nor does it need to.
We have the witnesses of millions of folks down through the millenia. They have been witnesses to their own experiences and those of others in terms of the Christian faith.
We also have the witness of millions of Christians alive today in the world. They to have had their experiences of the Divine and what they have seen.
I personally have experienced the Divine in several issues throughout my life. I have witnessed miracles that at unquestionable even for the doctors. I have no need to prove to anyone what I know
I am of course a pluralist Christian
Shalom
Ted:-6
Have to do this fast as the winds are picking up and we will probably lose our power soon.
The kind of validating proof that you seek, stand up in court etc. does not exist. Nor does it need to.
We have the witnesses of millions of folks down through the millenia. They have been witnesses to their own experiences and those of others in terms of the Christian faith.
We also have the witness of millions of Christians alive today in the world. They to have had their experiences of the Divine and what they have seen.
I personally have experienced the Divine in several issues throughout my life. I have witnessed miracles that at unquestionable even for the doctors. I have no need to prove to anyone what I know
I am of course a pluralist Christian
Shalom
Ted:-6
Have to do this fast as the winds are picking up and we will probably lose our power soon.
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Thank you for your reply Ted.
There have been relatively unbiased as well as unbiased scholars down through the centuries. One can ultimately believe what one wants. However in interpreting the Bible--trying to get gack to what the authors intended requires a lot of study: the language of the day, the culture of the day, the history to that point, the then fund of knowledge that they had, their conceptualization ability, style of writing, the audience for which it was written, the purpose for when it was written we can come very close to what the authors meant. Believing what they say as a matter of faith is just that. Add to the above list a good dose of good reasoning and we get even closer.
I’ve read a lot from all sides of the apologetic argument Ted, from conservative and liberal biblical apologetics to the sceptical arguments. It seems your position is closest to that of Bultmann, and his use of Form Criticism to demythologize the bible as a 1st century world view obscuring the essential truth behind the bible.
Such interpretations are not done just on the spur of the moment but after a great deal of research and discussion with fellow scholars. If you do not understand the style of writing (midrash) then you will get anything from anywhere and everywhere.
I’m acquainted with midrash Ted, and its use in the Bible, and its superficial forms are usually easy to spot. Jesus/Moses, parting of various seas/rivers etc. But because of its use, we are inevitably led to the position where we have to question the motives of the New Testament writers. Are they writing something that can at any stage be considered remotely historically accurate? Are parts of their writings used as a vehicle to artificially fulfil Old Testament prophesy, as in Mark? Or is it clearly midrashic, as in the case of Herod’s murder of the new born children?
For the best part of two thousand years devout Christians have taken the bible as god’s revealed truth, in that all parts of the bible not obviously of an allegorical nature are based on fact. Can it be that god would deceive his people for that length of time if they are free to “believe what one wants�
“Statements affirming particular facts may be found to have value as pictorial expressions of spiritual truths, even though the supposed facts themselves do not actually happen.â€Â
Anglican Church Commission on Christian Doctrine, 1938.
There must come a stage when even the most liberal of Christian interpreters of the bible must say “This is the truth, not spiritually true, not metaphorically true, but an objective factâ€Â. Where is that point Ted? I don’t expect the thousands of Christian denominations to be in lock-step over every doctrinal point, but what are the issues that are universally held as the literal truth?
Now we are able to compare the Biblical accounts with the archaeological evidence. There are also extral Biblical writings that do help. It seems to me that one should not only read the Bible but also what the great scholars have said down through the years. We ought to make use of the knowledge they have acquired.
Have you any particular archaeological evidence and extra biblical writings in mind Ted?
Please understand, my questions are not intended to attack or undermine any particular denomination of the Christian faith. I have a genuine desire to understand the motivations that various believers have for holding their faith, an attempt to try to comprehend what, to me, is incomprehensible.
There have been relatively unbiased as well as unbiased scholars down through the centuries. One can ultimately believe what one wants. However in interpreting the Bible--trying to get gack to what the authors intended requires a lot of study: the language of the day, the culture of the day, the history to that point, the then fund of knowledge that they had, their conceptualization ability, style of writing, the audience for which it was written, the purpose for when it was written we can come very close to what the authors meant. Believing what they say as a matter of faith is just that. Add to the above list a good dose of good reasoning and we get even closer.
I’ve read a lot from all sides of the apologetic argument Ted, from conservative and liberal biblical apologetics to the sceptical arguments. It seems your position is closest to that of Bultmann, and his use of Form Criticism to demythologize the bible as a 1st century world view obscuring the essential truth behind the bible.
Such interpretations are not done just on the spur of the moment but after a great deal of research and discussion with fellow scholars. If you do not understand the style of writing (midrash) then you will get anything from anywhere and everywhere.
I’m acquainted with midrash Ted, and its use in the Bible, and its superficial forms are usually easy to spot. Jesus/Moses, parting of various seas/rivers etc. But because of its use, we are inevitably led to the position where we have to question the motives of the New Testament writers. Are they writing something that can at any stage be considered remotely historically accurate? Are parts of their writings used as a vehicle to artificially fulfil Old Testament prophesy, as in Mark? Or is it clearly midrashic, as in the case of Herod’s murder of the new born children?
For the best part of two thousand years devout Christians have taken the bible as god’s revealed truth, in that all parts of the bible not obviously of an allegorical nature are based on fact. Can it be that god would deceive his people for that length of time if they are free to “believe what one wants�
“Statements affirming particular facts may be found to have value as pictorial expressions of spiritual truths, even though the supposed facts themselves do not actually happen.â€Â
Anglican Church Commission on Christian Doctrine, 1938.
There must come a stage when even the most liberal of Christian interpreters of the bible must say “This is the truth, not spiritually true, not metaphorically true, but an objective factâ€Â. Where is that point Ted? I don’t expect the thousands of Christian denominations to be in lock-step over every doctrinal point, but what are the issues that are universally held as the literal truth?
Now we are able to compare the Biblical accounts with the archaeological evidence. There are also extral Biblical writings that do help. It seems to me that one should not only read the Bible but also what the great scholars have said down through the years. We ought to make use of the knowledge they have acquired.
Have you any particular archaeological evidence and extra biblical writings in mind Ted?
Please understand, my questions are not intended to attack or undermine any particular denomination of the Christian faith. I have a genuine desire to understand the motivations that various believers have for holding their faith, an attempt to try to comprehend what, to me, is incomprehensible.
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
The kind of validating proof that you seek, stand up in court etc. does not exist. Nor does it need to.
We have the witnesses of millions of folks down through the millenia. They have been witnesses to their own experiences and those of others in terms of the Christian faith.
The Appeal to Numbers argument rarely works Ted because it often raises more questions than it answers. If Christianity and the Christian god is valid due to the number of its followers, and no other proof is required, does this mean it would be reasonable to claim that when Christianity was a small sect in Judea, the existence of Mithras could be taken as proven - without the need for further evidence - because it could be shown that he was worshipped from one end of the Roman Empire to the other and beyond? If a deity’s existence is based on having the largest number of followers, what happens to that deity if/when that religion is no longer the largest?
We have the witnesses of millions of folks down through the millenia. They have been witnesses to their own experiences and those of others in terms of the Christian faith.
The Appeal to Numbers argument rarely works Ted because it often raises more questions than it answers. If Christianity and the Christian god is valid due to the number of its followers, and no other proof is required, does this mean it would be reasonable to claim that when Christianity was a small sect in Judea, the existence of Mithras could be taken as proven - without the need for further evidence - because it could be shown that he was worshipped from one end of the Roman Empire to the other and beyond? If a deity’s existence is based on having the largest number of followers, what happens to that deity if/when that religion is no longer the largest?
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Gaius wrote: 1. I don't like the Roman Catholic Church's handling of Christianity...
2. ...or what has happened to the original gospels. 1. OK
2. Well, G, I don't wanna be a pest about this, but you haven't presented the slightest evidence that the original gospels have been compromised for what you have claimed (in earlier posts) to have been political purposes. I've pointed this out several times now, and you have not responded except by repeating the charge. How about some evidence from credible sources?
2. ...or what has happened to the original gospels. 1. OK
2. Well, G, I don't wanna be a pest about this, but you haven't presented the slightest evidence that the original gospels have been compromised for what you have claimed (in earlier posts) to have been political purposes. I've pointed this out several times now, and you have not responded except by repeating the charge. How about some evidence from credible sources?
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Well Bronwen, like you I have belief.
I rationally have decided that the Imperial Court of Rome had thrown out the original gospels for political reason's. Proof for rational conspiracys 1700 years old can be hard to come by, as you can imagine.
Have you got any idea why they threw out the original gospels (of which there were many)
Besides all that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are written many years after Jesus.
I rationally have decided that the Imperial Court of Rome had thrown out the original gospels for political reason's. Proof for rational conspiracys 1700 years old can be hard to come by, as you can imagine.
Have you got any idea why they threw out the original gospels (of which there were many)
Besides all that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are written many years after Jesus.
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Gaius wrote: 1. Well Bronwen, like you I have belief.
2. I rationally have decided that the Imperial Court of Rome had thrown out the original gospels for political reason's. Proof for rational conspiracys 1700 years old can be hard to come by, as you can imagine.
3. Have you got any idea why they threw out the original gospels (of which there were many)
4. Besides all that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are written many years after Jesus.1. No, you have DISbelief.
2. What is the rationale? Why have you decided that? Whim? Whim doesn't cut it. Where is the evidence?
3. No, that is YOUR idea, not mine, nor were there 'many' original gospels. There were basically two (Mark and John) with some additional material added to Mark by Matthew and Luke.
4. You were expecting they would be written BEFORE Jesus?
2. I rationally have decided that the Imperial Court of Rome had thrown out the original gospels for political reason's. Proof for rational conspiracys 1700 years old can be hard to come by, as you can imagine.
3. Have you got any idea why they threw out the original gospels (of which there were many)
4. Besides all that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are written many years after Jesus.1. No, you have DISbelief.
2. What is the rationale? Why have you decided that? Whim? Whim doesn't cut it. Where is the evidence?
3. No, that is YOUR idea, not mine, nor were there 'many' original gospels. There were basically two (Mark and John) with some additional material added to Mark by Matthew and Luke.
4. You were expecting they would be written BEFORE Jesus?
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
1. No, you have DISbelief.
2. What is the rationale? Why have you decided that? Whim? Whim doesn't cut it. Where is the evidence?
3. No, that is YOUR idea, not mine, nor were there 'many' original gospels. There were basically two (Mark and John) with some additional material added to Mark by Matthew and Luke.
4. You were expecting they would be written BEFORE Jesus?
1) I have belief in the human race, if you could call that a belief. What I don't believe in is somebody blowing themselves up and killing a bunch of Jews or somebody murdering an abortion clinic worker in the name of God.
2) Its rationality whether you like it or not Bronwen. The most likely scenario may well be upsetting, but it is the most obvious one. Is not the entire Christian faith a whim, after all?
3) Really if you continue this pretetense that you enjoy biblical history you are fooling yourself. If you truly belief that there were only ever the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John then I feel sorry for you that Church propaganda has destroyed your mind to the extent that it has.
4) Not at all. The fact that the gospels were written many years (100 years) after Jesus is a bit worrying. Ever play Chinese Whispers?
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
memebias:-6
Good questions and good discussion. I recomment to you two books written by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Silberman "The Bible Unearthed" and "David and Solomon". Both together will give you a good idea of the place of actual history in the Bible.
In the overall view of things there is not that much history in the Bible. It cannot be used as an historical text. However, if we understand this and the nature of ancient midrash then the history and the discrepensies etc. basically become meaninless since we are indeed able to discern the profound trtuths the Bible present.
For instance the Christmas story is basically midrashic. That being said it is supportive of the birth of Jesus and the later interpretations of his meaning in this world.
The Crucifixion story has four different accounts if you read each of the Gospels. The historical truth escapes us but the theological and relgious truth is quite clear.
Another book is "The Passion" by Geza Vermes.
ultimately what matters in the Bible is the truth that it presents and not the history or lack thereof. If we could get past this old idea that it must be historical to be true we would have less trouble arriving at the truth.
I do think too many people put more credit to the church of Rome for the production of the Bible. The early church under Constantine and his successors had more to do with the Bible then the Church of Rome at the time.
On a personal note I highly respect Bronwen's stand for her church. I can respect her for that position without agreeing with it. I am not totally anti-catholic but the word that I have gotten from the "inside" is that the church is in error and has been for a long time. The feeling I get is tha the RCC is more interested in power and control then in the Gospel of Christ. As I have said earlier, I personally have been deceived and lied to by both an RC Bishop and at least one priest.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Good questions and good discussion. I recomment to you two books written by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Silberman "The Bible Unearthed" and "David and Solomon". Both together will give you a good idea of the place of actual history in the Bible.
In the overall view of things there is not that much history in the Bible. It cannot be used as an historical text. However, if we understand this and the nature of ancient midrash then the history and the discrepensies etc. basically become meaninless since we are indeed able to discern the profound trtuths the Bible present.
For instance the Christmas story is basically midrashic. That being said it is supportive of the birth of Jesus and the later interpretations of his meaning in this world.
The Crucifixion story has four different accounts if you read each of the Gospels. The historical truth escapes us but the theological and relgious truth is quite clear.
Another book is "The Passion" by Geza Vermes.
ultimately what matters in the Bible is the truth that it presents and not the history or lack thereof. If we could get past this old idea that it must be historical to be true we would have less trouble arriving at the truth.
I do think too many people put more credit to the church of Rome for the production of the Bible. The early church under Constantine and his successors had more to do with the Bible then the Church of Rome at the time.
On a personal note I highly respect Bronwen's stand for her church. I can respect her for that position without agreeing with it. I am not totally anti-catholic but the word that I have gotten from the "inside" is that the church is in error and has been for a long time. The feeling I get is tha the RCC is more interested in power and control then in the Gospel of Christ. As I have said earlier, I personally have been deceived and lied to by both an RC Bishop and at least one priest.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
I would like to comment on the Gospels. Mark is considered the first to have been written around 60. Matthew the second,/ Luke the third. and John about 100' The writers of the Gospels whose names we do not know, were writing what the church had come to believe about this Jesus of Nazareth at the time of writing. They had at their disposal some written records, a great deal of oral story some history and some metaphor historicizeed. Of course they did not include all that they had but what they felt they needed for the audience for whom they were writing.
It is known that about 85% of the words attributed to Jesus cannot be traced back to the historical Jesus. They represent what the church had come to believe about his sayings and what he meant for the human race. This was not an attempt to deceive. It was simply the style of writing engaged in.
As we study and ferret out what Jesus said we are in fact able to come close to the Good News of Jesus Christ. It basicaly comes down to Micah 6:8 "What does God require of you but to do justice (distributive) love kindliness, and walk humbly with your God. In Matt 25 we read that those who fed the hungry, cared for the sick, etc were welcomed into the kingdom of God.
I have not added documentation but will here: John D. Crosson, Marcus Borg, Hans Kung, bart D. Ehrman, Gordon W Laythrop, Geza Vermes, John Spong, Matthew Fox, Finkelstein and Silberman, "The Interpreters One Volume Commentary". O. Murchu, B Anderson, A. Peacock, Paul Davies and a host of others.
I didn't make this list for any purpose other then to show that I have not taken this lightly and have spent untold hours doing reasearh and that anything I say can be supported by scholarship.
Shalom
Ted:-6
It is known that about 85% of the words attributed to Jesus cannot be traced back to the historical Jesus. They represent what the church had come to believe about his sayings and what he meant for the human race. This was not an attempt to deceive. It was simply the style of writing engaged in.
As we study and ferret out what Jesus said we are in fact able to come close to the Good News of Jesus Christ. It basicaly comes down to Micah 6:8 "What does God require of you but to do justice (distributive) love kindliness, and walk humbly with your God. In Matt 25 we read that those who fed the hungry, cared for the sick, etc were welcomed into the kingdom of God.
I have not added documentation but will here: John D. Crosson, Marcus Borg, Hans Kung, bart D. Ehrman, Gordon W Laythrop, Geza Vermes, John Spong, Matthew Fox, Finkelstein and Silberman, "The Interpreters One Volume Commentary". O. Murchu, B Anderson, A. Peacock, Paul Davies and a host of others.
I didn't make this list for any purpose other then to show that I have not taken this lightly and have spent untold hours doing reasearh and that anything I say can be supported by scholarship.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Bronwen's a woman???
This has changed my viewpoint on... everything :guitarist
This has changed my viewpoint on... everything :guitarist
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
It was about 367 that the Canon of the New Testament is confirmed and recognized as authoritative by Athanasius bishop of Alexandria in the East, and the Council of Carthage in the West. It is not until the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 that the RCC begins to gain the powers that it now holds. They of course took years to establish. It did not happen overnight.
Dates from the "Christian History Timeline" Rose Publishing.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Dates from the "Christian History Timeline" Rose Publishing.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Good questions and good discussion. I recomment to you two books written by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Silberman "The Bible Unearthed" and "David and Solomon". Both together will give you a good idea of the place of actual history in the Bible.
I keep meaning to grab hold of Finkelstein's and Neil Silberman's book, but never seem to get round to it. Having read the reviews and some passages quoted out of it, it seems it has caused a few furrowed brows amongst conservative Christians.
In the overall view of tings there is not that much history in the Bible. It cannot be used as an historical text. However, if we understand this and the nature of ancinent midrash then the history and the discrepensies etc. basically become meaninless sine we are indeed able to discern the profound trtuths the Bible present.
For instance the Christmas story is basically midrashic. That being said it is supportive of the birth of Jesus and the later interpretations of his meaning in this world.
The Crucifixion story has four different accounts if you read each of the Gospels. The historical truth escapes us but the theological and relgious truth is quite clear.
This is where, as an atheist, I hit problems Ted. Every time I hear phrases such as "theological truth" "religious truth" or "spiritual truth" they go around in my head and come out as "non-contingent faith".
In an earlier post I asked what can the multitude of Christian denominations agree on that can be labelled at a fact, rather than a matter of faith. I'll refine it a bit further. Jesus, his life and death are cornerstones of the Christian faith -
Do you (not necessarily you Ted, any Christian on this board can jump in) believe that Jesus was:
a) a supernatural being, who lived among us, was responsible for various miracles and died and was resurrected.
b) A fully human 1st Century Jewish agitator who later became mythologized.
c) a spiritual concept that later acquired human form through folk tales and legend
d) something else.
As an atheist I'd have to go for either b) (with nagging doubts about his existence at all) or c).
I keep meaning to grab hold of Finkelstein's and Neil Silberman's book, but never seem to get round to it. Having read the reviews and some passages quoted out of it, it seems it has caused a few furrowed brows amongst conservative Christians.
In the overall view of tings there is not that much history in the Bible. It cannot be used as an historical text. However, if we understand this and the nature of ancinent midrash then the history and the discrepensies etc. basically become meaninless sine we are indeed able to discern the profound trtuths the Bible present.
For instance the Christmas story is basically midrashic. That being said it is supportive of the birth of Jesus and the later interpretations of his meaning in this world.
The Crucifixion story has four different accounts if you read each of the Gospels. The historical truth escapes us but the theological and relgious truth is quite clear.
This is where, as an atheist, I hit problems Ted. Every time I hear phrases such as "theological truth" "religious truth" or "spiritual truth" they go around in my head and come out as "non-contingent faith".
In an earlier post I asked what can the multitude of Christian denominations agree on that can be labelled at a fact, rather than a matter of faith. I'll refine it a bit further. Jesus, his life and death are cornerstones of the Christian faith -
Do you (not necessarily you Ted, any Christian on this board can jump in) believe that Jesus was:
a) a supernatural being, who lived among us, was responsible for various miracles and died and was resurrected.
b) A fully human 1st Century Jewish agitator who later became mythologized.
c) a spiritual concept that later acquired human form through folk tales and legend
d) something else.
As an atheist I'd have to go for either b) (with nagging doubts about his existence at all) or c).
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
memebias:-6
Crossan's book "The Historical Jesus: an Eastern Mediterranian Jewish Peasant" is well researched and well documented.
I will give you my understanding from all that I have read and learned. Jesus was born, probably in Nazareth in an upper room to parents who were likely Joseph and Mary though the question of paternity resulted in him being labelled a mamzer and person of questionable paternity.
He grew to manhood and likely took up the profession as a carpenter.
The question of the historicity of Jesus is no longer questioned among the worlds major scholars. He was an historical figue.
What was he: a spirit person, a healer, and exorcist? These are all attributed to him in many ways. So were others thought of in the same way. He obviously enjoyed a special relationship with the Divine much as did the prophets of old. He apparently committed no sin. Remember he was a human being and suffered all of the things that most humans suffer.
To be blunt about it he was a s**t disturber. He taught a way of life that was contrary to the existing social milieu: condemning the evil domination systems, (we still have them), promoting distributive justice, promoting the low classes of folks who deserved better, questioning both the economic authorities as well as the political authorities. In short he was a rebel and a rabble rouser who was crucified as all such folks were. He talked about the coming Kingdom of God.
He was indeed crucified. There is no doubt about it. As the going got tough his disciples and followers, with the exception of a few women deserted him in fear of their lives. They hid out to avoid being found.
On the third day after his execution we have what is called the Easter Experience. Whatever it was and whatever happened his former followers felt that his living presence was still with them. Regardless of what we think about this they turned from cowaring, cringing, fearful men into outspoken followers of the one they deserted. To my way of thinking whatever happened must have been profound because this simple Jewish peasant changed the course of history.
Millions down through the centuries have had similar experiences and it has changed their lives.
Today millions have had similar experiences and it continues to change lives. Can I describe it or define it or prove it? Yes and no. I personally have experienced the Risen Lord on several occasions and it has changed my life. We have in the world millions of witnesses to this. We might be tempted to say they experienced this or that as some psychologists do. I'm afraid that angers me to a great extent. How dare anyone tell me what I've experienced. It was my experience and not theirs. I have come to know what I know and for me that is all that matters.
Because of what I have seen in both myself and others and because of my experiences I have come to accept the fact of Jesus as the Christ. I have been involved in and seen miracles happen. It was, after his death that he was exalted to the Godhead. Thus we have many theologians who speak of the historical Jesus and the Risen Christ of Faith.
Mohammed and Buddha and many Hindus have had mystical experiences similar to Jesus and they too have had a profound effect on the world.
As an atheist I cannot prove it to you any better then that and I do understand your position. May your search be fruitful as mine was.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Crossan's book "The Historical Jesus: an Eastern Mediterranian Jewish Peasant" is well researched and well documented.
I will give you my understanding from all that I have read and learned. Jesus was born, probably in Nazareth in an upper room to parents who were likely Joseph and Mary though the question of paternity resulted in him being labelled a mamzer and person of questionable paternity.
He grew to manhood and likely took up the profession as a carpenter.
The question of the historicity of Jesus is no longer questioned among the worlds major scholars. He was an historical figue.
What was he: a spirit person, a healer, and exorcist? These are all attributed to him in many ways. So were others thought of in the same way. He obviously enjoyed a special relationship with the Divine much as did the prophets of old. He apparently committed no sin. Remember he was a human being and suffered all of the things that most humans suffer.
To be blunt about it he was a s**t disturber. He taught a way of life that was contrary to the existing social milieu: condemning the evil domination systems, (we still have them), promoting distributive justice, promoting the low classes of folks who deserved better, questioning both the economic authorities as well as the political authorities. In short he was a rebel and a rabble rouser who was crucified as all such folks were. He talked about the coming Kingdom of God.
He was indeed crucified. There is no doubt about it. As the going got tough his disciples and followers, with the exception of a few women deserted him in fear of their lives. They hid out to avoid being found.
On the third day after his execution we have what is called the Easter Experience. Whatever it was and whatever happened his former followers felt that his living presence was still with them. Regardless of what we think about this they turned from cowaring, cringing, fearful men into outspoken followers of the one they deserted. To my way of thinking whatever happened must have been profound because this simple Jewish peasant changed the course of history.
Millions down through the centuries have had similar experiences and it has changed their lives.
Today millions have had similar experiences and it continues to change lives. Can I describe it or define it or prove it? Yes and no. I personally have experienced the Risen Lord on several occasions and it has changed my life. We have in the world millions of witnesses to this. We might be tempted to say they experienced this or that as some psychologists do. I'm afraid that angers me to a great extent. How dare anyone tell me what I've experienced. It was my experience and not theirs. I have come to know what I know and for me that is all that matters.
Because of what I have seen in both myself and others and because of my experiences I have come to accept the fact of Jesus as the Christ. I have been involved in and seen miracles happen. It was, after his death that he was exalted to the Godhead. Thus we have many theologians who speak of the historical Jesus and the Risen Christ of Faith.
Mohammed and Buddha and many Hindus have had mystical experiences similar to Jesus and they too have had a profound effect on the world.
As an atheist I cannot prove it to you any better then that and I do understand your position. May your search be fruitful as mine was.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
I also would have to go with B. I don't think there's actually much doubt that he existed. I regard Christianity as a philosophy towards life. If people applied the focal point of Christ's message (Or was it the Church's message?) the world would be a better place; "Love your enemy" or "do not unto others that you would not do onto you" or "let thee without sin cast the first stone"
The list goes on. I don't like bigots using the bible to rationalise their hatred of homosexuals, and a thousand other little vices that have came out of it. We should use our own brains (As you believe God gave you) and make individual moral choices. I have made the moral choice that sex before marriage is fine, homosexuality is a legitimate alternative to heterosexuality, if thats your thing and abortion can be reasoned (Although I am against it in many cases)
The list goes on. I don't like bigots using the bible to rationalise their hatred of homosexuals, and a thousand other little vices that have came out of it. We should use our own brains (As you believe God gave you) and make individual moral choices. I have made the moral choice that sex before marriage is fine, homosexuality is a legitimate alternative to heterosexuality, if thats your thing and abortion can be reasoned (Although I am against it in many cases)
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Gaius wrote: 1) I have belief in the human race, if you could call that a belief. What I don't believe in is somebody blowing themselves up and killing a bunch of Jews or somebody murdering an abortion clinic worker in the name of God.
2) Its rationality whether you like it or not Bronwen. The most likely scenario may well be upsetting, but it is the most obvious one. Is not the entire Christian faith a whim, after all?
3) Really if you continue this pretetense that you enjoy biblical history you are fooling yourself. If you truly belief that there were only ever the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John then I feel sorry for you that Church propaganda has destroyed your mind to the extent that it has.
4) Not at all. The fact that the gospels were written many years (100 years) after Jesus is a bit worrying. Ever play Chinese Whispers?Well, G, I don't think we're going anywhere with this, so perhaps it's best just to stop boring the other participants here and write it off as a deadlock.
There are men and women, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, and possibly even some agnostics, who have devoted their entire lives to the study of Bible history and Bible archaeology. They examine the evidence and come to conclusions based on that evidence. They try, usually successfully, to keep their sectarian beliefs separate from their scholarly research. They don't agree on everything, but what differences they have only encourage continued research.
My view of Scripture is based on the continuing work of these experts. The views I express here on matters of Bible history reflect what I believe to be a concensus of modern, nonsectarian Bible scholarship.
Nearly everything you've posted here on the subject falls outside the mainstream. My problem with you is not your preference for the outer fringes rather than the mainstream of Bible scholarship, for that is a view to which you are certainly entitled, but that you try to characterize it as, to use your own words, 'rational', 'likely', or 'obvious'.
Taking your last point first, none of the canonical Gospels were written anywhere near 100 years after Jesus' crucifixion, which occurred in about AD 27-29. The Gospels, as nearly as we can tell, appeared between about AD 65 (Mark) and AD 100 (John).
Next, there is no serious research indicating more than four accounts of Christ's life which have the slightest claim to canonicity. The much later accounts to which you are probably referring are nothing more than literature and can be easily sorted out from the canonical Gospels. Claiming, as you seem to be doing, that they somehow deserve equal status with Matthew, Mark, Luke and John is really quite silly.
Finally, I would point out that nearly ALL modern translations are, as I have mentioned before on this forum, the work of interdenominational scholarship, Catholic-Protestant or Catholic-Protestant-Jewish. Nor were earlier translations by Catholic or Protestant scholars alone particularly 'propagandistic', though in some of these cases a SLIGHT sectarian bias might be discerned.
Just for the record, here are the translations that I personally use:
For daily, non-scholarly Bible reading, the Good News Bible, subtitled 'Today's English Version'.
For more serious research, the New English Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, and last but hardly least, the Anchor Bible, published by Doubleday, which I consider the state-of-the-art of modern Bible scholarship and which is currently undergoing a major revision which will bring it up to date with the very latest research.
There are other fine, modern translations also. I suggest you rely more on these and less on the fringe material from which you seem to be getting your weird ideas and opinions.
2) Its rationality whether you like it or not Bronwen. The most likely scenario may well be upsetting, but it is the most obvious one. Is not the entire Christian faith a whim, after all?
3) Really if you continue this pretetense that you enjoy biblical history you are fooling yourself. If you truly belief that there were only ever the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John then I feel sorry for you that Church propaganda has destroyed your mind to the extent that it has.
4) Not at all. The fact that the gospels were written many years (100 years) after Jesus is a bit worrying. Ever play Chinese Whispers?Well, G, I don't think we're going anywhere with this, so perhaps it's best just to stop boring the other participants here and write it off as a deadlock.
There are men and women, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, and possibly even some agnostics, who have devoted their entire lives to the study of Bible history and Bible archaeology. They examine the evidence and come to conclusions based on that evidence. They try, usually successfully, to keep their sectarian beliefs separate from their scholarly research. They don't agree on everything, but what differences they have only encourage continued research.
My view of Scripture is based on the continuing work of these experts. The views I express here on matters of Bible history reflect what I believe to be a concensus of modern, nonsectarian Bible scholarship.
Nearly everything you've posted here on the subject falls outside the mainstream. My problem with you is not your preference for the outer fringes rather than the mainstream of Bible scholarship, for that is a view to which you are certainly entitled, but that you try to characterize it as, to use your own words, 'rational', 'likely', or 'obvious'.
Taking your last point first, none of the canonical Gospels were written anywhere near 100 years after Jesus' crucifixion, which occurred in about AD 27-29. The Gospels, as nearly as we can tell, appeared between about AD 65 (Mark) and AD 100 (John).
Next, there is no serious research indicating more than four accounts of Christ's life which have the slightest claim to canonicity. The much later accounts to which you are probably referring are nothing more than literature and can be easily sorted out from the canonical Gospels. Claiming, as you seem to be doing, that they somehow deserve equal status with Matthew, Mark, Luke and John is really quite silly.
Finally, I would point out that nearly ALL modern translations are, as I have mentioned before on this forum, the work of interdenominational scholarship, Catholic-Protestant or Catholic-Protestant-Jewish. Nor were earlier translations by Catholic or Protestant scholars alone particularly 'propagandistic', though in some of these cases a SLIGHT sectarian bias might be discerned.
Just for the record, here are the translations that I personally use:
For daily, non-scholarly Bible reading, the Good News Bible, subtitled 'Today's English Version'.
For more serious research, the New English Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, and last but hardly least, the Anchor Bible, published by Doubleday, which I consider the state-of-the-art of modern Bible scholarship and which is currently undergoing a major revision which will bring it up to date with the very latest research.
There are other fine, modern translations also. I suggest you rely more on these and less on the fringe material from which you seem to be getting your weird ideas and opinions.
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Ted wrote: 1. I am not totally anti-catholic but...
2. ...the word that I have gotten from the "inside" is that the church is in error and has been for a long time.
3. The feeling I get is that the RCC is more interested in power and control then in the Gospel of Christ.
4. As I have said earlier, I personally have been deceived and lied to by both an RC Bishop and at least one priest.1. Well, 99% is close. Seriously, though...
2. No, that word came from the outer fringe of Catholicism. But that is nothing new. Various forms of heresy and apostasy have existed since the earlist days of Christianity.
3. I would put it differently: As the community of believers founded by Christ on Peter as His earthly successor, the Church believes that it has authority and divine guidance that other churches that call themselves 'Christian' lack.
4. Well, between items 2 and 4 I think we can determine your position, sort of like an ecclesiastical GPS. On the one hand (2) you claim that sources 'inside' the Catholic Church (whom you do not name) claim that it is in error (while not specifying the nature or extent of the error). On the other hand (4) you claim to have been 'lied to' by at least one priest and one bishop, while, as in (2), not giving any specifics.
Would it be wrong to assume that the clergymen in (4) are judged to be lying because they disagree with those in (2)? That is what you seem to be saying, but your claims are so anecdotal that it's hard to tell for sure.
All I'm asking is that you be more specific, a request that you have so far ignored. This might be good fodder for a new thread, and here, based on your own claims, are at least some of the points that might be addressed:
A. How has the RCC been 'in error for a long time'? Be specific.
B. Give examples of the RCC being 'more interested in power and control than in the Gospel of Christ'. I attend Mass every Sunday, I hear sermons every week about various aspects of the Gospel. I can't remember the last time, if ever, I heard one about power and control. There is no question that the RCC has an established hierarchy. So do many of the Protestant denominations, including your own.
C. In general, what issues of theology and Church history are Catholic bishops and priests lying about? Please provide documentation.
I think that this could be an interesting discussion if we could move beyond the anecdotal to the factual.
2. ...the word that I have gotten from the "inside" is that the church is in error and has been for a long time.
3. The feeling I get is that the RCC is more interested in power and control then in the Gospel of Christ.
4. As I have said earlier, I personally have been deceived and lied to by both an RC Bishop and at least one priest.1. Well, 99% is close. Seriously, though...
2. No, that word came from the outer fringe of Catholicism. But that is nothing new. Various forms of heresy and apostasy have existed since the earlist days of Christianity.
3. I would put it differently: As the community of believers founded by Christ on Peter as His earthly successor, the Church believes that it has authority and divine guidance that other churches that call themselves 'Christian' lack.
4. Well, between items 2 and 4 I think we can determine your position, sort of like an ecclesiastical GPS. On the one hand (2) you claim that sources 'inside' the Catholic Church (whom you do not name) claim that it is in error (while not specifying the nature or extent of the error). On the other hand (4) you claim to have been 'lied to' by at least one priest and one bishop, while, as in (2), not giving any specifics.
Would it be wrong to assume that the clergymen in (4) are judged to be lying because they disagree with those in (2)? That is what you seem to be saying, but your claims are so anecdotal that it's hard to tell for sure.
All I'm asking is that you be more specific, a request that you have so far ignored. This might be good fodder for a new thread, and here, based on your own claims, are at least some of the points that might be addressed:
A. How has the RCC been 'in error for a long time'? Be specific.
B. Give examples of the RCC being 'more interested in power and control than in the Gospel of Christ'. I attend Mass every Sunday, I hear sermons every week about various aspects of the Gospel. I can't remember the last time, if ever, I heard one about power and control. There is no question that the RCC has an established hierarchy. So do many of the Protestant denominations, including your own.
C. In general, what issues of theology and Church history are Catholic bishops and priests lying about? Please provide documentation.
I think that this could be an interesting discussion if we could move beyond the anecdotal to the factual.
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Have you ever been persecuted for being a Catholic?
If you haven't (I have, I have lived very near Northern Ireland and spent a lot of time in Belfast) then you have absolutely no grounds on which to call me sectarian. It's a pity when one cannot critiscise something without being labeled a racist, or a faith-hater. It shows a fundamental weakness on the opposite argument when they resort to name-calling.
I will not reply to this thread, good day and good luck.
If you haven't (I have, I have lived very near Northern Ireland and spent a lot of time in Belfast) then you have absolutely no grounds on which to call me sectarian. It's a pity when one cannot critiscise something without being labeled a racist, or a faith-hater. It shows a fundamental weakness on the opposite argument when they resort to name-calling.
I will not reply to this thread, good day and good luck.
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Gaius wrote: you have absolutely no grounds on which to call me sectarian. It's a pity when one cannot critiscise something without being labeled a racist, or a faith-hater. It shows a fundamental weakness on the opposite argument when they resort to name-calling.
Ummm... those are all your words, Gaius, not hers. I don't think she was talking about you when she said that. Get over yourself, in fact. You throw all kinds of accusations around without even thinking twice but then start squealing like a speared bushpig at even the slightest perceived attack on yourself. If you've really been persecuted before your feathers shouldn't get ruffled so easily by anything that's happened here.
Ummm... those are all your words, Gaius, not hers. I don't think she was talking about you when she said that. Get over yourself, in fact. You throw all kinds of accusations around without even thinking twice but then start squealing like a speared bushpig at even the slightest perceived attack on yourself. If you've really been persecuted before your feathers shouldn't get ruffled so easily by anything that's happened here.
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Oh Jesus.
I was tired.
What a twat I am.
I was tired.
What a twat I am.
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Ted wrote:
To be blunt about it he was a s**t disturber. He taught a way of life that was contrary to the existing social milieu: condemning the evil domination systems, (we still have them), promoting distributive justice, promoting the low classes of folks who deserved better, questioning both the economic authorities as well as the political authorities. In short he was a rebel and a rabble rouser who was crucified as all such folks were.
Ted:-6
For the first time in my life you have made me think that Jesus was cool.
To be blunt about it he was a s**t disturber. He taught a way of life that was contrary to the existing social milieu: condemning the evil domination systems, (we still have them), promoting distributive justice, promoting the low classes of folks who deserved better, questioning both the economic authorities as well as the political authorities. In short he was a rebel and a rabble rouser who was crucified as all such folks were.
Ted:-6
For the first time in my life you have made me think that Jesus was cool.
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Bronwen:-6
At this point in time I am not a liberty to divulge names. Two of these gentlemen are now dead and were considered wonderful priests by both the hierarchy and the local folks. The others are still practising and I have no desire to disrupt their lives.
Father S. Clements has recently acknowledged on tV that he is a gay priest and estimates that at least 50% are. Now I have absolutely no problem with folks being gay and practising that lifestyle but the RCC is well hung up on this one.
As far as the Bishop and Priest lying to meand deceiving me it was not in the nature of #2. When the new RC bishop arrived I and a whole congregation were promised that the situation would remain the same and that ultimately we must go with our conscience. A year and a half later both the Bishop and the Priest reversed their positions and brought to an and a wonderful community of Christians. A person gets only one chance to lie or deceive me.
As far as the Pope being a successor to Peter many Priests and RCs do not believe it. I am a member of the one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. I do not nor does my church believe this doctrine. There are also the "Old Catholics" of Europe and North America who don't accept the authority of the Pope. I am accountable to God and God alone. I have relied on the Holy Spirit throughout most of my life for "His" guidance.
You talk of the authority of the Church. That is the church that gave us the crusades, the inquisition, the abuse of scientists, the abuse of Priests, the Priestly abuse of children, a church that has immense wealth in material possessions yet supports the elite of South America as opposed to the oppressed and the hungry, a church that refuses contraception and thus encourages the spread of AIDS. I know your comment on this. Excuse me but the sex drive is a very powerful drive and people will have sex whether the church likes it or not. That is the reality. Preaching abstinence has been a complete failure. To understand this all we need to do is look at the world and especially Africa. I want no part of that church.
With all due respect you say you have never seen the desire for power and control and that is precisely because you are inside and well controlled. Take a step outside and look again. To an outsider it is the most obvious thing about the church.
Now I have great love and respect for those Priests that I have refused to name as well as a great many Catholics who feel that they have been personally betrayed by their church. Of course I can't and won't name them.
Shalom
Ted:-6
At this point in time I am not a liberty to divulge names. Two of these gentlemen are now dead and were considered wonderful priests by both the hierarchy and the local folks. The others are still practising and I have no desire to disrupt their lives.
Father S. Clements has recently acknowledged on tV that he is a gay priest and estimates that at least 50% are. Now I have absolutely no problem with folks being gay and practising that lifestyle but the RCC is well hung up on this one.
As far as the Bishop and Priest lying to meand deceiving me it was not in the nature of #2. When the new RC bishop arrived I and a whole congregation were promised that the situation would remain the same and that ultimately we must go with our conscience. A year and a half later both the Bishop and the Priest reversed their positions and brought to an and a wonderful community of Christians. A person gets only one chance to lie or deceive me.
As far as the Pope being a successor to Peter many Priests and RCs do not believe it. I am a member of the one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. I do not nor does my church believe this doctrine. There are also the "Old Catholics" of Europe and North America who don't accept the authority of the Pope. I am accountable to God and God alone. I have relied on the Holy Spirit throughout most of my life for "His" guidance.
You talk of the authority of the Church. That is the church that gave us the crusades, the inquisition, the abuse of scientists, the abuse of Priests, the Priestly abuse of children, a church that has immense wealth in material possessions yet supports the elite of South America as opposed to the oppressed and the hungry, a church that refuses contraception and thus encourages the spread of AIDS. I know your comment on this. Excuse me but the sex drive is a very powerful drive and people will have sex whether the church likes it or not. That is the reality. Preaching abstinence has been a complete failure. To understand this all we need to do is look at the world and especially Africa. I want no part of that church.
With all due respect you say you have never seen the desire for power and control and that is precisely because you are inside and well controlled. Take a step outside and look again. To an outsider it is the most obvious thing about the church.
Now I have great love and respect for those Priests that I have refused to name as well as a great many Catholics who feel that they have been personally betrayed by their church. Of course I can't and won't name them.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Ted wrote: 1. At this point in time I am not a liberty to divulge names. Two of these gentlemen are now dead and were considered wonderful priests by both the hierarchy and the local folks. The others are still practising and I have no desire to disrupt their lives......Now I have great love and respect for those Priests that I have refused to name as well as a great many Catholics who feel that they have been personally betrayed by their church. Of course I can't and won't name them.
2. Father S. Clements has recently acknowledged on tV that he is a gay priest and estimates that at least 50% are. Now I have absolutely no problem with folks being gay and practising that lifestyle but the RCC is well hung up on this one.
3. As far as the Bishop and Priest lying to me and deceiving me it was not in the nature of #2. When the new RC bishop arrived I and a whole congregation were promised that the situation would remain the same and that ultimately we must go with our conscience. A year and a half later both the Bishop and the Priest reversed their positions and brought to an and a wonderful community of Christians. A person gets only one chance to lie or deceive me.
4a. As far as the Pope being a successor to Peter many Priests and RCs do not believe it.
4b. I am a member of the one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
4c. I do not nor does my church believe this doctrine.
4d. There are also the "Old Catholics" of Europe and North America who don't accept the authority of the Pope.
4e. I am accountable to God and God alone.
4f. I have relied on the Holy Spirit throughout most of my life for "His" guidance.
5. You talk of the authority of the Church. That is the church that gave us the crusades, the inquisition, the abuse of scientists, the abuse of Priests, the Priestly abuse of children, a church that has immense wealth in material possessions yet supports the elite of South America as opposed to the oppressed and the hungry, a church that refuses contraception and thus encourages the spread of AIDS. I know your comment on this. Excuse me but the sex drive is a very powerful drive and people will have sex whether the church likes it or not. That is the reality. Preaching abstinence has been a complete failure. To understand this all we need to do is look at the world and especially Africa. I want no part of that church.
6. With all due respect you say you have never seen the desire for power and control and that is precisely because you are inside and well controlled.
7. Take a step outside and look again. To an outsider it is the most obvious thing about the church.Funny thing...when I called up this forum just now I thought I smelled FISH. Ted, it must be all the red herrings you have been flinging around in my absence!
Look, I'm a patient person, so I'm gonna try once more. If you cannot be responsive, why not just be honest and say that you don't wish to continue the discussion? I can certainly understand why you would not wish to do so. Your position is weak and you know it.
1. When did I ask you to name anyone? On the contrary, I stated the challenge as impersonally as possible. Here 'tis again:A. How has the RCC been 'in error for a long time'? Be specific.
B. Give examples of the RCC being 'more interested in power and control than in the Gospel of Christ'.....There is no question that the RCC has an established hierarchy. So do many of the Protestant denominations, including your own.
C. In general, what issues of theology and Church history are Catholic bishops and priests lying about? Please provide documentation.Where do you see anything about naming individuals? I'd like you to name ERRORS that the Church has 'been in for a long time'. You seem to be talking about errors of DOCTRINE here. According to my view of Church history, it was the so-called 'reformers' who committed all of the errors of doctrine while the Roman Church remained steadfast. But I am willing to examine your evidence to the contrary; so far you haven't presented any.
2. That is very interesting, but unless I read the man's exact words, I can't comment. I would say that his 50% figure is probably somewhere in the ballpark, maybe a bit high but I'm not sure. When one becomes a priest and observes ones vow of celibacy it's kind of a moot issue. What is your point?
3. Here you have lost me completely! A new RC bishop arrived and he made promises to Anglicans about how he would administer his diocese? Doesn't seem logical. And 'reversed their positions' about what? You give no clue.
4a. Nonsense! How could anyone not believe a matter of historical fact? On what basis do they DISbelieve it?
4b. Here I agree with you. The Anglican Church, if my knowledge of it is correct, originally had valid sacraments and valid orders, lost them, regained them by bringing in schismatic bishops to re-consecrate all of their bishops, and now can reasonably claim validity again.
4c. Well, that is an oversimplification. The Anglican Church, as I understand its position, while not considering the pope as their leader, nonetheless accepts the RCC's list of popes from Linus, so their list of our popes is the same as our list of our popes but the numbering is one off, as they count Linus rather than Peter as the first pope. Of course, this is so artificial as to be silly. Jesus Christ hardly passed the keys to Linus!
Of course, it's equally silly to suppose that ONE PERSON's unsuccessful request for an annulment, a person who, by the way, went on to either divorce or murder five wives - count 'em - five, is grounds for starting an entire new religion.
4d. Again, you are correct and, like the Eastern Orthodox, the RCC regards these Churches as 'merely schismatic', with valid orders and valid sacraments. I'm not sure of your point here. How do they differ in matters of doctrine?
4e. There are many God-fearing people who feel that way, and I am certainly not qualified to judge them, God will, and fairly.
4f. Well, OK, but when it reaches the point when you seem to be saying that the Holy Spirit guides you but not the Church, I gotta wonder.
5. The only authority I referred to is that which came from Christ. Are you seriously asserting that Christ would sanction all manner of sexual immorality as long as a condom is used so as not to spread AIDS? The Church's position has always been that married couples should remain faithful and unmarried people should remain chaste. Those who follow that advice are very unlikely to contract AIDS. To what extent do you think that Jesus Christ would disagree with that?
And regarding 'the priestly abuse of children', I have said before that that subject belongs in a separate thread, where I am very willing to discuss it at any length you wish. The fact that you keep introducing it into this discussion only supports my contention that your position here is weak.
By the way, are you claiming that no such abuse problem exists in the Anglican priesthood? Or that the Anglican Church condones adultery and fornication? If so, I was not aware of that, and that would certainly change my mainly favorable opinion of the Anglican communion.
6 & 7. Fine, Ted, give me some SPECIFIC examples. I keep asking and you keep dodging.
I might add that earlier in my life, when I lived in Virginia Beach, Virginia, I attended a wonderful, spirit-filled, combined Roman Catholic and Protestant Episcopal Chruch, the Church of the Holy Apostles. Here is their website:
http://www.sovanet.org/~holyapostles1/index.html
I can assure you that the animosity you seem to have for the RCC is not shared there, nor am I aware of any such antagonism elsewhere in the USA. I can understand that the situation might be somewhat different in the UK, considering the history. Canada would, I suppose, lie somewhere inbetween.
2. Father S. Clements has recently acknowledged on tV that he is a gay priest and estimates that at least 50% are. Now I have absolutely no problem with folks being gay and practising that lifestyle but the RCC is well hung up on this one.
3. As far as the Bishop and Priest lying to me and deceiving me it was not in the nature of #2. When the new RC bishop arrived I and a whole congregation were promised that the situation would remain the same and that ultimately we must go with our conscience. A year and a half later both the Bishop and the Priest reversed their positions and brought to an and a wonderful community of Christians. A person gets only one chance to lie or deceive me.
4a. As far as the Pope being a successor to Peter many Priests and RCs do not believe it.
4b. I am a member of the one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
4c. I do not nor does my church believe this doctrine.
4d. There are also the "Old Catholics" of Europe and North America who don't accept the authority of the Pope.
4e. I am accountable to God and God alone.
4f. I have relied on the Holy Spirit throughout most of my life for "His" guidance.
5. You talk of the authority of the Church. That is the church that gave us the crusades, the inquisition, the abuse of scientists, the abuse of Priests, the Priestly abuse of children, a church that has immense wealth in material possessions yet supports the elite of South America as opposed to the oppressed and the hungry, a church that refuses contraception and thus encourages the spread of AIDS. I know your comment on this. Excuse me but the sex drive is a very powerful drive and people will have sex whether the church likes it or not. That is the reality. Preaching abstinence has been a complete failure. To understand this all we need to do is look at the world and especially Africa. I want no part of that church.
6. With all due respect you say you have never seen the desire for power and control and that is precisely because you are inside and well controlled.
7. Take a step outside and look again. To an outsider it is the most obvious thing about the church.Funny thing...when I called up this forum just now I thought I smelled FISH. Ted, it must be all the red herrings you have been flinging around in my absence!
Look, I'm a patient person, so I'm gonna try once more. If you cannot be responsive, why not just be honest and say that you don't wish to continue the discussion? I can certainly understand why you would not wish to do so. Your position is weak and you know it.
1. When did I ask you to name anyone? On the contrary, I stated the challenge as impersonally as possible. Here 'tis again:A. How has the RCC been 'in error for a long time'? Be specific.
B. Give examples of the RCC being 'more interested in power and control than in the Gospel of Christ'.....There is no question that the RCC has an established hierarchy. So do many of the Protestant denominations, including your own.
C. In general, what issues of theology and Church history are Catholic bishops and priests lying about? Please provide documentation.Where do you see anything about naming individuals? I'd like you to name ERRORS that the Church has 'been in for a long time'. You seem to be talking about errors of DOCTRINE here. According to my view of Church history, it was the so-called 'reformers' who committed all of the errors of doctrine while the Roman Church remained steadfast. But I am willing to examine your evidence to the contrary; so far you haven't presented any.
2. That is very interesting, but unless I read the man's exact words, I can't comment. I would say that his 50% figure is probably somewhere in the ballpark, maybe a bit high but I'm not sure. When one becomes a priest and observes ones vow of celibacy it's kind of a moot issue. What is your point?
3. Here you have lost me completely! A new RC bishop arrived and he made promises to Anglicans about how he would administer his diocese? Doesn't seem logical. And 'reversed their positions' about what? You give no clue.
4a. Nonsense! How could anyone not believe a matter of historical fact? On what basis do they DISbelieve it?
4b. Here I agree with you. The Anglican Church, if my knowledge of it is correct, originally had valid sacraments and valid orders, lost them, regained them by bringing in schismatic bishops to re-consecrate all of their bishops, and now can reasonably claim validity again.
4c. Well, that is an oversimplification. The Anglican Church, as I understand its position, while not considering the pope as their leader, nonetheless accepts the RCC's list of popes from Linus, so their list of our popes is the same as our list of our popes but the numbering is one off, as they count Linus rather than Peter as the first pope. Of course, this is so artificial as to be silly. Jesus Christ hardly passed the keys to Linus!
Of course, it's equally silly to suppose that ONE PERSON's unsuccessful request for an annulment, a person who, by the way, went on to either divorce or murder five wives - count 'em - five, is grounds for starting an entire new religion.
4d. Again, you are correct and, like the Eastern Orthodox, the RCC regards these Churches as 'merely schismatic', with valid orders and valid sacraments. I'm not sure of your point here. How do they differ in matters of doctrine?
4e. There are many God-fearing people who feel that way, and I am certainly not qualified to judge them, God will, and fairly.
4f. Well, OK, but when it reaches the point when you seem to be saying that the Holy Spirit guides you but not the Church, I gotta wonder.
5. The only authority I referred to is that which came from Christ. Are you seriously asserting that Christ would sanction all manner of sexual immorality as long as a condom is used so as not to spread AIDS? The Church's position has always been that married couples should remain faithful and unmarried people should remain chaste. Those who follow that advice are very unlikely to contract AIDS. To what extent do you think that Jesus Christ would disagree with that?
And regarding 'the priestly abuse of children', I have said before that that subject belongs in a separate thread, where I am very willing to discuss it at any length you wish. The fact that you keep introducing it into this discussion only supports my contention that your position here is weak.
By the way, are you claiming that no such abuse problem exists in the Anglican priesthood? Or that the Anglican Church condones adultery and fornication? If so, I was not aware of that, and that would certainly change my mainly favorable opinion of the Anglican communion.
6 & 7. Fine, Ted, give me some SPECIFIC examples. I keep asking and you keep dodging.
I might add that earlier in my life, when I lived in Virginia Beach, Virginia, I attended a wonderful, spirit-filled, combined Roman Catholic and Protestant Episcopal Chruch, the Church of the Holy Apostles. Here is their website:
http://www.sovanet.org/~holyapostles1/index.html
I can assure you that the animosity you seem to have for the RCC is not shared there, nor am I aware of any such antagonism elsewhere in the USA. I can understand that the situation might be somewhat different in the UK, considering the history. Canada would, I suppose, lie somewhere inbetween.
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Gaius wrote: Oh Jesus.
I was tired.
What a twat I am.
Reminds me of the old Siamese mantra:
OHWAH....TAHGOO....SIAM.
I was tired.
What a twat I am.
Reminds me of the old Siamese mantra:OHWAH....TAHGOO....SIAM.
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Sorry about the delay in replying, work is mounting up.:-1
I will give you my understanding from all that I have read and learned. Jesus was born, probably in Nazareth in an upper room to parents who were likely Joseph and Mary though the question of paternity resulted in him being labelled a mamzer and person of questionable paternity.
He grew to manhood and likely took up the profession as a carpenter.
Not much I could disagree with here Ted, all possible.
The question of the historicity of Jesus is no longer questioned among the worlds major scholars. He was an historical figue.
This is where we part company Ted.
Scepticism towards the existence of a historical Jesus has been around for a long time Ted, from at least the eighteenth century.
Even such notables as Albert Schweitzer became so disillusioned with his failure to find evidence for a flesh and blood Jesus that he abandoned a promising career in theology and went to Africa as a medical missionary. This is how he put it in his book, The Quest of the Historical Jesus:
"In the last resort this book can only express the misgivings about the historical Jesus as depicted by modern theology. There is nothing more negative than the results of the critical study of the life of Jesus."
You don’t have to be either a theologian or a professional historian to have reasonable doubts about the historicity of Jesus.
In all the vast numbers of books dedicated to proving his existence, none resolve the two main areas of doubt about an earthly Jesus. Firstly, the absence of any contemporary archaeological or other evidence that would point to his existence. Secondly, the total reliance of hearsay evidence presented decades after the fact. Hearsay evidence that never in any instance introduces anything to the story of Jesus cannot be found in earlier Christian literature.
It is fair to say that in no other case investigating a person’s existence in history would this level of evidence be deemed acceptable enough to claim that his or her historicity has been proven as an unquestionable fact, or even beyond reasonable doubt. Christian biblical scholars such as David Freedman, editor of the Anchor Bible series, acknowledge this:
"We have to accept somewhat looser standards… When dealing with the Bible or any ancient source, we have to loosen up a little; otherwise, we can't really say anything."
Bible Review 1993
Even the best of Christian scholars fall into the trap of adopting these looser standards. Here is a quote from Crossan talking about the archaeological digs at Nazareth:
“…looking at their locations on the plans … one realizes just how small the village actually was ..."
How do you get location plans detailed enough to estimate the size of a village when according to Jonathan L. Reed in ‘Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus’:
“In terms of private space, one of the notable problems is that the later Christian constructions have obliterated any evidence of homes other than the subterranean cisterns, storage bins, and caves.â€Â
The Nazareth digs were on limestone rock, no significant amount of organic material that would allow the mapping of dwellings was found during any of these archaeological digs, no foundations were excavated that would allow a reasonable plan of the layout of the individual buildings or the size of the village, and no official reports from the digs were produced show Crossans ‘plan’ was possible.
In fact, the best the leader of the first archaeological dig, (the Franciscan Father Bellarmino Bagatti), could do was assume there were first century dwellings, later destroyed by invaders.
A 1st Century Nazareth may have existed, it can’t be proved either way until a comprehensive dig of a larger area comes up with some solid evidence, but Crossan is doing the idea of a historical Jesus no favours by seemingly accepting Freedman’s idea of “looser standards†and putting forward a reconstruction of a village which is unsupported by any archaeological evidence.
What was he: a spirit person, a healer, and exorcist? These are all attributed to him in many ways. So were others thought of in the same way. He obviously enjoyed a special relationship with the Divine much as did the prophets of old. He apparently committed no sin. Remember he was a human being and suffered all of the things that most humans suffer.
Spirit person, a healer, and exorcist? Who knows, we have evidence of all these through history, I have some difficulties with the ‘sinless’ bit though.
To be blunt about it he was a s**t disturber. He taught a way of life that was contrary to the existing social milieu: condemning the evil domination systems, (we still have them), promoting distributive justice, promoting the low classes of folks who deserved better, questioning both the economic authorities as well as the political authorities.
All with historical precedent, so I can’t argue about the possibility.
He was indeed crucified. There is no doubt about it.
And again, this is where we’ll disagree Ted. Without evidence, this can only be an opinion, and therefore doubt. Have you any non-biblical evidence for the crucifixion?
How dare anyone tell me what I've experienced. It was my experience and not theirs. I have come to know what I know and for me that is all that matters.
Big problem for me here Ted. I’ve no doubt you believe your experiences were profound; I’ve no doubt others have had similar experiences that they believe were just as profound. But how can we draw objective conclusions from subjective phenomena?
As an atheist I cannot prove it to you any better then that and I do understand your position. May your search be fruitful as mine was.
Who knows? :wah:
I will give you my understanding from all that I have read and learned. Jesus was born, probably in Nazareth in an upper room to parents who were likely Joseph and Mary though the question of paternity resulted in him being labelled a mamzer and person of questionable paternity.
He grew to manhood and likely took up the profession as a carpenter.
Not much I could disagree with here Ted, all possible.
The question of the historicity of Jesus is no longer questioned among the worlds major scholars. He was an historical figue.
This is where we part company Ted.
Scepticism towards the existence of a historical Jesus has been around for a long time Ted, from at least the eighteenth century.
Even such notables as Albert Schweitzer became so disillusioned with his failure to find evidence for a flesh and blood Jesus that he abandoned a promising career in theology and went to Africa as a medical missionary. This is how he put it in his book, The Quest of the Historical Jesus:
"In the last resort this book can only express the misgivings about the historical Jesus as depicted by modern theology. There is nothing more negative than the results of the critical study of the life of Jesus."
You don’t have to be either a theologian or a professional historian to have reasonable doubts about the historicity of Jesus.
In all the vast numbers of books dedicated to proving his existence, none resolve the two main areas of doubt about an earthly Jesus. Firstly, the absence of any contemporary archaeological or other evidence that would point to his existence. Secondly, the total reliance of hearsay evidence presented decades after the fact. Hearsay evidence that never in any instance introduces anything to the story of Jesus cannot be found in earlier Christian literature.
It is fair to say that in no other case investigating a person’s existence in history would this level of evidence be deemed acceptable enough to claim that his or her historicity has been proven as an unquestionable fact, or even beyond reasonable doubt. Christian biblical scholars such as David Freedman, editor of the Anchor Bible series, acknowledge this:
"We have to accept somewhat looser standards… When dealing with the Bible or any ancient source, we have to loosen up a little; otherwise, we can't really say anything."
Bible Review 1993
Even the best of Christian scholars fall into the trap of adopting these looser standards. Here is a quote from Crossan talking about the archaeological digs at Nazareth:
“…looking at their locations on the plans … one realizes just how small the village actually was ..."
How do you get location plans detailed enough to estimate the size of a village when according to Jonathan L. Reed in ‘Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus’:
“In terms of private space, one of the notable problems is that the later Christian constructions have obliterated any evidence of homes other than the subterranean cisterns, storage bins, and caves.â€Â
The Nazareth digs were on limestone rock, no significant amount of organic material that would allow the mapping of dwellings was found during any of these archaeological digs, no foundations were excavated that would allow a reasonable plan of the layout of the individual buildings or the size of the village, and no official reports from the digs were produced show Crossans ‘plan’ was possible.
In fact, the best the leader of the first archaeological dig, (the Franciscan Father Bellarmino Bagatti), could do was assume there were first century dwellings, later destroyed by invaders.
A 1st Century Nazareth may have existed, it can’t be proved either way until a comprehensive dig of a larger area comes up with some solid evidence, but Crossan is doing the idea of a historical Jesus no favours by seemingly accepting Freedman’s idea of “looser standards†and putting forward a reconstruction of a village which is unsupported by any archaeological evidence.
What was he: a spirit person, a healer, and exorcist? These are all attributed to him in many ways. So were others thought of in the same way. He obviously enjoyed a special relationship with the Divine much as did the prophets of old. He apparently committed no sin. Remember he was a human being and suffered all of the things that most humans suffer.
Spirit person, a healer, and exorcist? Who knows, we have evidence of all these through history, I have some difficulties with the ‘sinless’ bit though.
To be blunt about it he was a s**t disturber. He taught a way of life that was contrary to the existing social milieu: condemning the evil domination systems, (we still have them), promoting distributive justice, promoting the low classes of folks who deserved better, questioning both the economic authorities as well as the political authorities.
All with historical precedent, so I can’t argue about the possibility.
He was indeed crucified. There is no doubt about it.
And again, this is where we’ll disagree Ted. Without evidence, this can only be an opinion, and therefore doubt. Have you any non-biblical evidence for the crucifixion?
How dare anyone tell me what I've experienced. It was my experience and not theirs. I have come to know what I know and for me that is all that matters.
Big problem for me here Ted. I’ve no doubt you believe your experiences were profound; I’ve no doubt others have had similar experiences that they believe were just as profound. But how can we draw objective conclusions from subjective phenomena?
As an atheist I cannot prove it to you any better then that and I do understand your position. May your search be fruitful as mine was.
Who knows? :wah:
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Bronwen:-6
I give you credit for being well entrenched in your Roman Catholicism though I could use other terms.
You stated in one of your posts "whom I refuse to name". To me that is an obvious request for names which I am bound by my own conscience not to name.
I would love to continue the thiscussion but have been holding back in deferrence to your feelings concerning your church.
What are they lying about? Documentation! I told you it was to myself and a whole congregation. I will explain a little more. BTW I wnet to that site you provided and was impressed to a point. We were an Anglican-Roman Catholic congregation and one of the most wonderful Chistian communities that I have even encountered. We had the blessing of both the Bishop (Remi deRoo) and a wonderful priest (now deceased). We worshipped together, in fact we were one church as the Bible says "That we may be one" The Bishop wanted us to jointly own the church and to proceed with plans to build a new church. The appropriate applications were made and the dicesan administrator, contrary to the wishes of the Bishop kept putting the application to the bottom of the pile with innuerable excuses.
We got a new Bishop Raymond Roussin who on visiting the churc h told us that we could continue on as we were and that any question of Eucharst was a matter of conscience. Over a year and a half he had us conduct a series of workshops to assess our position. We were all adamant about it. Wehn he didn't get what he obviously wanted from the beginning he ordered us to split. The new priest that was involved was also very uncooperative in spite of the Bishops directives.
I am completely unimpressed by the RCC's stand on the Eucharist.
"Let it be said clearly: it is not the Lord's supper we celebrate--or it is the Lord's supper celebrated in such a way as to make us sick or to kill us==--if it is celebrated for men only, for women only, for one tribe or nationality only, for those with caste status only, for the wealthy only, for the able-bodied only. It is simply no defense to say: 'But this is my culture.' Such a cultural element is wrong and is to be rejected This is the meaning of Paul's critique of the conintian mean practice (I Cor. 11:20-21), a critique that is of very great importance for the countercultural and transformative power of the liturgy. P69 "Holy People" Gordon W. Laythrop.
In short if the table is not open to all Christians it is not the Lord's table nor is it the Eucharist.
As for Father Clement. According to him he is a gay priest practising the gay lifestyle.
I listed several places where the RCC church is wrong but I did miss one: the selling of indulgences. I won't bother listing the others I have listed and that you basically ignored.
4a you listed as a matter of historical fact--absolutely not. It is a matter of interpretation. Even the Eastern Orthodox do not recognize the supremecy of the Pope. Though the RCC does like to adhere to it and as far as I can see for only one reason power and control. That was the same reason our combined congregation was ordered to disband.
"Merely schismatic" is simply a cop out to avoid admitting error nothing more nothing less. It is time the RCC admitted what the world knows the Orthodox split and the Reformation happened. Instead of crying over spilt milk it might serve them better to assess as to why splits happen. Luther did not want to start a new branch of the church. He simply wanted the church to admit to some errors-indulgences among them and make appropriate changes.
Your comment on the depth and breadth of my faith is immaterial. It's a personal relationship between myself and the Divine.
I will comment on 6 and 7 in due course.
BTW I realize that all churches have similar problems with child abuse etc. At least most of them don't try to hide it or spread it around. "The Church that Forgot Christ" Breslin (I do hope the spelling is correct this time)
Let us take a brief look at the morality code of Jesus era. Adultery was the action where a married man had sex with another man's betrothed or wife. It was not considered adultery if a man had sex with a woman who was not a virgin or was a prostitute. It was the virgin that was considered to be committing a sin as well as the non-virgin. "Rabbi Jesus" Bruce Chilton. I will also see if I can relocate the URL that supports this as well.
My "animosity" to the RCC is not total but deception and lies do not help nor do I have any animosity towards Roman Catholics.
I don't normally write long posts but this one seems to be.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I give you credit for being well entrenched in your Roman Catholicism though I could use other terms.
You stated in one of your posts "whom I refuse to name". To me that is an obvious request for names which I am bound by my own conscience not to name.
I would love to continue the thiscussion but have been holding back in deferrence to your feelings concerning your church.
What are they lying about? Documentation! I told you it was to myself and a whole congregation. I will explain a little more. BTW I wnet to that site you provided and was impressed to a point. We were an Anglican-Roman Catholic congregation and one of the most wonderful Chistian communities that I have even encountered. We had the blessing of both the Bishop (Remi deRoo) and a wonderful priest (now deceased). We worshipped together, in fact we were one church as the Bible says "That we may be one" The Bishop wanted us to jointly own the church and to proceed with plans to build a new church. The appropriate applications were made and the dicesan administrator, contrary to the wishes of the Bishop kept putting the application to the bottom of the pile with innuerable excuses.
We got a new Bishop Raymond Roussin who on visiting the churc h told us that we could continue on as we were and that any question of Eucharst was a matter of conscience. Over a year and a half he had us conduct a series of workshops to assess our position. We were all adamant about it. Wehn he didn't get what he obviously wanted from the beginning he ordered us to split. The new priest that was involved was also very uncooperative in spite of the Bishops directives.
I am completely unimpressed by the RCC's stand on the Eucharist.
"Let it be said clearly: it is not the Lord's supper we celebrate--or it is the Lord's supper celebrated in such a way as to make us sick or to kill us==--if it is celebrated for men only, for women only, for one tribe or nationality only, for those with caste status only, for the wealthy only, for the able-bodied only. It is simply no defense to say: 'But this is my culture.' Such a cultural element is wrong and is to be rejected This is the meaning of Paul's critique of the conintian mean practice (I Cor. 11:20-21), a critique that is of very great importance for the countercultural and transformative power of the liturgy. P69 "Holy People" Gordon W. Laythrop.
In short if the table is not open to all Christians it is not the Lord's table nor is it the Eucharist.
As for Father Clement. According to him he is a gay priest practising the gay lifestyle.
I listed several places where the RCC church is wrong but I did miss one: the selling of indulgences. I won't bother listing the others I have listed and that you basically ignored.
4a you listed as a matter of historical fact--absolutely not. It is a matter of interpretation. Even the Eastern Orthodox do not recognize the supremecy of the Pope. Though the RCC does like to adhere to it and as far as I can see for only one reason power and control. That was the same reason our combined congregation was ordered to disband.
"Merely schismatic" is simply a cop out to avoid admitting error nothing more nothing less. It is time the RCC admitted what the world knows the Orthodox split and the Reformation happened. Instead of crying over spilt milk it might serve them better to assess as to why splits happen. Luther did not want to start a new branch of the church. He simply wanted the church to admit to some errors-indulgences among them and make appropriate changes.
Your comment on the depth and breadth of my faith is immaterial. It's a personal relationship between myself and the Divine.
I will comment on 6 and 7 in due course.
BTW I realize that all churches have similar problems with child abuse etc. At least most of them don't try to hide it or spread it around. "The Church that Forgot Christ" Breslin (I do hope the spelling is correct this time)
Let us take a brief look at the morality code of Jesus era. Adultery was the action where a married man had sex with another man's betrothed or wife. It was not considered adultery if a man had sex with a woman who was not a virgin or was a prostitute. It was the virgin that was considered to be committing a sin as well as the non-virgin. "Rabbi Jesus" Bruce Chilton. I will also see if I can relocate the URL that supports this as well.
My "animosity" to the RCC is not total but deception and lies do not help nor do I have any animosity towards Roman Catholics.
I don't normally write long posts but this one seems to be.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
memebias:-6
We certainly disagree on more then we agree. However, that is life. It is amazing though how many folks denied the haulocaust within 40 years of the second world war. There is noting that I can say that will convince you of the historical Jesus. I suppose what we have is basically circumstantial evidence. Josephus, Nero, Tacitus metion Jesus. While Paul never met the historical Jesus he does mention him frequently. Oral tradition was mentioning Jesus within 20 years of his death. We also have the witness of 2000years.
That being said let us consider who this man wasa peasant, of the low class, a simple Eastern Mediterranian peasant. He was seen as a local rabble rouser of if you will a s**t disturber. Now I don't know about you but I hardly expect to be remembered ever 500 years from now. Something must have happened to make this name stick to say nothing bout the 2000 years of history that have been changed by this name.
Anyway I will let that be as we must each make up our own mind.
As far as Nazaeth goes both Reed and Crossan seem to have no problem with Nazareth "The massive layer representing the Christian construction of terra sancta, Holy Land, rests atop a frail and elusive layer representing a simple Jewilsh peasant life; excavations underneath later Christian structures uncovered no synagogue, but also no fortification, no palace, no basilica, no bathhouse, no paved street, nothing. Instead, olive presses, wine presses, water cisterns, grain silos, and ginding stones scattered around caves tell of a population that lived hovels and simple peasant houses." p31 "Excavating Jesus" by Crossan & Reed.
Now I have no problem with that description of Nazareth. Both Reed and Crossan seem to have no problem with that position.
Shalom
Ted:-6
We certainly disagree on more then we agree. However, that is life. It is amazing though how many folks denied the haulocaust within 40 years of the second world war. There is noting that I can say that will convince you of the historical Jesus. I suppose what we have is basically circumstantial evidence. Josephus, Nero, Tacitus metion Jesus. While Paul never met the historical Jesus he does mention him frequently. Oral tradition was mentioning Jesus within 20 years of his death. We also have the witness of 2000years.
That being said let us consider who this man wasa peasant, of the low class, a simple Eastern Mediterranian peasant. He was seen as a local rabble rouser of if you will a s**t disturber. Now I don't know about you but I hardly expect to be remembered ever 500 years from now. Something must have happened to make this name stick to say nothing bout the 2000 years of history that have been changed by this name.
Anyway I will let that be as we must each make up our own mind.
As far as Nazaeth goes both Reed and Crossan seem to have no problem with Nazareth "The massive layer representing the Christian construction of terra sancta, Holy Land, rests atop a frail and elusive layer representing a simple Jewilsh peasant life; excavations underneath later Christian structures uncovered no synagogue, but also no fortification, no palace, no basilica, no bathhouse, no paved street, nothing. Instead, olive presses, wine presses, water cisterns, grain silos, and ginding stones scattered around caves tell of a population that lived hovels and simple peasant houses." p31 "Excavating Jesus" by Crossan & Reed.
Now I have no problem with that description of Nazareth. Both Reed and Crossan seem to have no problem with that position.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Ted wrote: 1. I give you credit for being well entrenched in your Roman Catholicism though I could use other terms.
2. You stated in one of your posts "whom I refuse to name". To me that is an obvious request for names which I am bound by my own conscience not to name.
3. We were an Anglican-Roman Catholic congregation and one of the most wonderful Chistian communities that I have even encountered....
4. I am completely unimpressed by the RCC's stand on the Eucharist. In short if the table is not open to all Christians it is not the Lord's table nor is it the Eucharist.
5. As for Father Clement. According to him he is a gay priest practising the gay lifestyle.
6. I listed several places where the RCC church is wrong but I did miss one: the selling of indulgences. I won't bother listing the others I have listed and that you basically ignored.
7. It is a matter of interpretation. Even the Eastern Orthodox do not recognize the supremecy of the Pope. Though the RCC does like to adhere to it and as far as I can see for only one reason power and control.
8. "Merely schismatic" is simply a cop out to avoid admitting error nothing more nothing less. It is time the RCC admitted what the world knows the Orthodox split and the Reformation happened.
9a. I realize that all churches have similar problems with child abuse etc.
9b. At least most of them don't try to hide it or spread it around.
10. Let us take a brief look at the morality code of Jesus era. Adultery was the action where a married man had sex with another man's betrothed or wife. It was not considered adultery if a man had sex with a woman who was not a virgin or was a prostitute. It was the virgin that was considered to be committing a sin as well as the non-virgin.
11. My "animosity" to the RCC is not total but deception and lies do not help nor do I have any animosity towards Roman Catholics.1. Well, I perceive that as a 'left-handed' compliment at best, but, as with so many of your other statements, I would put it differently, and simply repeat what I stated earlier: I attended Catholic schools for 11 years, and in that time I was never taught or told ANYTHING about the Church, Church history or Bible history that I later found to be false, misleading or inaccurate. That is one of the main reasons that I have remained a loyal Catholic all of my life. If I ever found that I had been lied to, I would have found another spiritual home. That is why I am so interested in your assertions that the Church has 'been in error for a long time' and that priests and bishops are chronic liars. I keep asking for examples and so far you have not provided any.
By the way, we are talking about matters of FACT here. Matters of faith are different. One believer might say, 'The Eucharist is transsubstantiated', another, 'No, you are mistaken, it is consubstantiated', still another, 'You are both wrong, it is merely symbolic', these are matters of faith that cannot be proven, and one can say, at best, 'My position is stronger than yours'. But certain Protestant churches, and I would by no means include the Anglicans here, go far beyond that and tell the most outrageous lies, lies of FACT, about the Catholic Church, the history of the Church and of the Reformation, and of the Bible, maintaining a 'holier than thou' facade while completely ignoring the commandment about bearing false witness.
2. You are taking my words out of context. Here is what I said:...you claim that sources 'inside' the Catholic Church (whom you do not name) claim that it is in error (while not specifying the nature or extent of the error).Gimme a break! There is no demand for a name of a PERSON here. Name the alleged ERRORS! That you refuse to do so is highly significant.
3. Well, Ted, that is an interesting story, but in all candor I think it goes beyond the scope of this thread. You seem to be saying that the Catholic hierarchy was more doctrinaire or intractilbe here than the Anglican and I do not doubt that. Not having been personally involved in the situation, I don't feel qualified to comment further.
4. Such a statement reminds me of the Baptists who claim, with no logical or Scriptural support whatever, that Baptism should be only by immersion. Jesus gave His apostles and their successors the power to bind and loose, to lead His community with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and that would certainly include how things like Baptism and Holy Communion should be administered. I am not aware of Him having given such authority to Ted.
The main reason the Catholic Chruch limits the distribution of Holy Communion to Catholics - and you should already know this; I think you're being a bit disingenuous here - is that most other denoninations perceive the Eucharist differently (and in most other denoms it IS different, since they lack the authority to consecrate). If they do not believe that they are receiving the Real Presence of Christ, and thereby sharing in His divinity, then they should not receive in a Catholic Church at all.
Even with Catholics, they limit it, as they should, to those in a state of grace, which is to say, anyone with a mortal sin to confess must do so, and receive absolution before communicating, and as far as I know, this rule is followed in Anglicanism also, the difference being that the Anglican celebrant usually gives a general absolution earlier in the service, while in Roman Catholicism this is possible but rare, usually given once or twice a year, and its scarcity is to encourage auricular confession, which has many benefits in addition to the absolution itself.
5. What is 'practicing the gay lifestyle'? If he is sexually active he should not be an active priest. In that case, sexual orientation would not be an issue. The issue is entirely his vow of chastity, a condition of his ordination.
6. Slippery as an eel! No, no, Ted, we are not talking about the middle ages here. Indulgences were sold by atheist slimeballs who had taken over the temporal administration of the Chruch. Strictly speaking, it is not even possible to sell indulgences, because indulgences involve prayers authorized by the Chruch to be said in place of public penance. We are talking here about your unsupported assertion that the Church has 'been in error for a long time' about - well, I don't know about what. That's what I keep trying to find out, and what you keep refusing to specify.
7. It's a matter of history AND of interpretation. The circumstances leading to the Schism are way, way beyond the scope of this thread. The Eastern Orthodox Chruches separated themselves from the papacy; like the Anglicans, they hardly deny that the papacy exists, what is what you seem to be claiming. Are you implying that there is no 'power and control' within Eastern Orthodoxy or within Anglicanism? LOL!
8. You seem to be implying that the fact that these Churches rejected the community that Christ founded on Peter means that they were right and those who remained loyal were wrong. What is your basis for such a claim?
9a. I am glad that you realize that.
9b. Here you are completely wrong; on the contrary, most churches HAVE tried to hide it. How many admissions of child abuse have you heard from the various Protestant Fundamentalists such as the Baptists, Assemblies of God, etc.? The admissions by the Catholics, Anglicans, Mormons and others are to those Churches' credit, BUT, having made such admissions, it now behooves them to be more vigilant in the future. If they are not, they should be held criminally responsible to the greatest extent that the law allows. Of course, so should those churches which have so far refused to admit any such problem.
10. Ted, come off it. You are quite aware that Jesus condemned all forms of sexual immorality, as does Judaism and as does NEARLY all of Christianity today. That there are certain ultra-liberal Christians who try - unsuccessfully - to rationalize various forms of promiscuity I do not doubt. You are correct, though, that adultery by its very nature has always been considered particularly evil.
11. One last time, please give clear, specific example of the errors, lies and deceptions you're asserting. Let's not play hide-and-go-seek or 'word search' here, Ted. Make a list, check it twice, post it here for all to see, then I'll respond.
2. You stated in one of your posts "whom I refuse to name". To me that is an obvious request for names which I am bound by my own conscience not to name.
3. We were an Anglican-Roman Catholic congregation and one of the most wonderful Chistian communities that I have even encountered....
4. I am completely unimpressed by the RCC's stand on the Eucharist. In short if the table is not open to all Christians it is not the Lord's table nor is it the Eucharist.
5. As for Father Clement. According to him he is a gay priest practising the gay lifestyle.
6. I listed several places where the RCC church is wrong but I did miss one: the selling of indulgences. I won't bother listing the others I have listed and that you basically ignored.
7. It is a matter of interpretation. Even the Eastern Orthodox do not recognize the supremecy of the Pope. Though the RCC does like to adhere to it and as far as I can see for only one reason power and control.
8. "Merely schismatic" is simply a cop out to avoid admitting error nothing more nothing less. It is time the RCC admitted what the world knows the Orthodox split and the Reformation happened.
9a. I realize that all churches have similar problems with child abuse etc.
9b. At least most of them don't try to hide it or spread it around.
10. Let us take a brief look at the morality code of Jesus era. Adultery was the action where a married man had sex with another man's betrothed or wife. It was not considered adultery if a man had sex with a woman who was not a virgin or was a prostitute. It was the virgin that was considered to be committing a sin as well as the non-virgin.
11. My "animosity" to the RCC is not total but deception and lies do not help nor do I have any animosity towards Roman Catholics.1. Well, I perceive that as a 'left-handed' compliment at best, but, as with so many of your other statements, I would put it differently, and simply repeat what I stated earlier: I attended Catholic schools for 11 years, and in that time I was never taught or told ANYTHING about the Church, Church history or Bible history that I later found to be false, misleading or inaccurate. That is one of the main reasons that I have remained a loyal Catholic all of my life. If I ever found that I had been lied to, I would have found another spiritual home. That is why I am so interested in your assertions that the Church has 'been in error for a long time' and that priests and bishops are chronic liars. I keep asking for examples and so far you have not provided any.
By the way, we are talking about matters of FACT here. Matters of faith are different. One believer might say, 'The Eucharist is transsubstantiated', another, 'No, you are mistaken, it is consubstantiated', still another, 'You are both wrong, it is merely symbolic', these are matters of faith that cannot be proven, and one can say, at best, 'My position is stronger than yours'. But certain Protestant churches, and I would by no means include the Anglicans here, go far beyond that and tell the most outrageous lies, lies of FACT, about the Catholic Church, the history of the Church and of the Reformation, and of the Bible, maintaining a 'holier than thou' facade while completely ignoring the commandment about bearing false witness.
2. You are taking my words out of context. Here is what I said:...you claim that sources 'inside' the Catholic Church (whom you do not name) claim that it is in error (while not specifying the nature or extent of the error).Gimme a break! There is no demand for a name of a PERSON here. Name the alleged ERRORS! That you refuse to do so is highly significant.
3. Well, Ted, that is an interesting story, but in all candor I think it goes beyond the scope of this thread. You seem to be saying that the Catholic hierarchy was more doctrinaire or intractilbe here than the Anglican and I do not doubt that. Not having been personally involved in the situation, I don't feel qualified to comment further.
4. Such a statement reminds me of the Baptists who claim, with no logical or Scriptural support whatever, that Baptism should be only by immersion. Jesus gave His apostles and their successors the power to bind and loose, to lead His community with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and that would certainly include how things like Baptism and Holy Communion should be administered. I am not aware of Him having given such authority to Ted.
The main reason the Catholic Chruch limits the distribution of Holy Communion to Catholics - and you should already know this; I think you're being a bit disingenuous here - is that most other denoninations perceive the Eucharist differently (and in most other denoms it IS different, since they lack the authority to consecrate). If they do not believe that they are receiving the Real Presence of Christ, and thereby sharing in His divinity, then they should not receive in a Catholic Church at all.
Even with Catholics, they limit it, as they should, to those in a state of grace, which is to say, anyone with a mortal sin to confess must do so, and receive absolution before communicating, and as far as I know, this rule is followed in Anglicanism also, the difference being that the Anglican celebrant usually gives a general absolution earlier in the service, while in Roman Catholicism this is possible but rare, usually given once or twice a year, and its scarcity is to encourage auricular confession, which has many benefits in addition to the absolution itself.
5. What is 'practicing the gay lifestyle'? If he is sexually active he should not be an active priest. In that case, sexual orientation would not be an issue. The issue is entirely his vow of chastity, a condition of his ordination.
6. Slippery as an eel! No, no, Ted, we are not talking about the middle ages here. Indulgences were sold by atheist slimeballs who had taken over the temporal administration of the Chruch. Strictly speaking, it is not even possible to sell indulgences, because indulgences involve prayers authorized by the Chruch to be said in place of public penance. We are talking here about your unsupported assertion that the Church has 'been in error for a long time' about - well, I don't know about what. That's what I keep trying to find out, and what you keep refusing to specify.
7. It's a matter of history AND of interpretation. The circumstances leading to the Schism are way, way beyond the scope of this thread. The Eastern Orthodox Chruches separated themselves from the papacy; like the Anglicans, they hardly deny that the papacy exists, what is what you seem to be claiming. Are you implying that there is no 'power and control' within Eastern Orthodoxy or within Anglicanism? LOL!
8. You seem to be implying that the fact that these Churches rejected the community that Christ founded on Peter means that they were right and those who remained loyal were wrong. What is your basis for such a claim?
9a. I am glad that you realize that.
9b. Here you are completely wrong; on the contrary, most churches HAVE tried to hide it. How many admissions of child abuse have you heard from the various Protestant Fundamentalists such as the Baptists, Assemblies of God, etc.? The admissions by the Catholics, Anglicans, Mormons and others are to those Churches' credit, BUT, having made such admissions, it now behooves them to be more vigilant in the future. If they are not, they should be held criminally responsible to the greatest extent that the law allows. Of course, so should those churches which have so far refused to admit any such problem.
10. Ted, come off it. You are quite aware that Jesus condemned all forms of sexual immorality, as does Judaism and as does NEARLY all of Christianity today. That there are certain ultra-liberal Christians who try - unsuccessfully - to rationalize various forms of promiscuity I do not doubt. You are correct, though, that adultery by its very nature has always been considered particularly evil.
11. One last time, please give clear, specific example of the errors, lies and deceptions you're asserting. Let's not play hide-and-go-seek or 'word search' here, Ted. Make a list, check it twice, post it here for all to see, then I'll respond.
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Bronwen:-6
Actually I do admire you for your stand though I strongly disagree with it.
The RCC is not the only true church. The church is the body of Christ which includes all who call Jesus Lord.
Actually Anglican and Roman Catholics do not differ on the Eucharist. I also elieve, but stand to be corrected, that the Lutheran Church hosds the same view.
# 3 holds referenced to the errors. It was I and the congregation who were both deceived and lied to by the Bishop and the Priest concerning the nature of our relationship. But you have nicely sidestepped the issue by saying it belongs in another thread. I call that creative dancing. You do it well.
Let us look at indulgences."In 1095, Urban II, propagateing the First Crusade, laid it down that a crusad to the Holy Land was a substitute for any other penance, and intailed complete remission of sin. This, of course involved an actual and hazardous crusade, the privilege, or indulgence was hedged about with careful qualifications and terrific penaties if a man reneged. Throughout the twelfth centruy, crusading was the only source of indulgences, excep in rare individual cases. kBut of course it was always these rare individual ccases (that is, the rich, the well placed, the smart cleric) which shipwrecked the principle. Early in the thirteenth Centure to those who helped merely with money and advice. Fifty years later, Innocent IV awarded indulgences without any conditions of crusader service, naturally only in special circumstances. By the end of the thirteenth centruy, indulgences were being granted fo secular princes for political reasons. Soon after, individuals were alled to buy plenary indulgences from their confessors on their death-bed; this means they could enter Heaven immediately, provided they died in a state of grace immediately after full confession. In the first six months of 1344, Clement VI granted this privilege to two hundred people in England alone; it cost them less than ten shillings each. The Pope justified this by saying; ' A pontiff should make his subjects happy." p233 "A History of Christianity" Paul Johnson.
"Athiest slimballs"???? You said it.
#4 I stand by my quote from Laythrop who is both a professor and theologian.
#6 I can't comment on the Eastern Orthodox re power and control. I can and have only commented on what I know and have seen.
Your view of the church is far too narrow. We are to leave the judging up to God. Those churches that spilt did so because the RCC was seen as not living the truth and being in error and refusing to make appropriate changes.
#9 Not all churches hide the problem. Have you read "The Church that Forgot Christ" yet? There you will see in clear writing with names and churches the lies and deceits.
#10 You haven't studied the ancient morality code of Israel. Your comment then is simply wishful thinking.
Errors
-indulgences
-use of the Eucharist contrary to the teachings of Paul and the example of Jesus.
-Continuing to perpetuate the split they caused in the first place.
-inexcusable behaviour towards the Jews in the Second World War-read "Hitler's Pope.
-upsetting their own people here with lies and deception.
-the inquisition-some six hundred years of illegal executions which were accomplished through most inhumane methods
-The support of the rich and elite in South America while ignoring the poor and the down trodden-Oscar Ramero comes to mind-personal discussion with Matthew Fox.
-the abuse of women re their place in the church-Jesus and Paul both had women disciples and preachers.
-Ridiculous annulments which are nothing more then divorce by another name. Perhaps not an error just blind stupidity.
-the coverup, lies and deceits of child molestation-Read "The Church that Forgot Christ".
-Regardess of how you feel about the behaviour of the parents-by condemning the use of contraceptives the church condemns innocent children to a horrible death. We do know what Jesus said about "these little ones".
The issue of what happened in the local congregation that you claim not to understand is clearly written. Your refusal to respond is simply a cop out but you do that well.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Actually I do admire you for your stand though I strongly disagree with it.
The RCC is not the only true church. The church is the body of Christ which includes all who call Jesus Lord.
Actually Anglican and Roman Catholics do not differ on the Eucharist. I also elieve, but stand to be corrected, that the Lutheran Church hosds the same view.
# 3 holds referenced to the errors. It was I and the congregation who were both deceived and lied to by the Bishop and the Priest concerning the nature of our relationship. But you have nicely sidestepped the issue by saying it belongs in another thread. I call that creative dancing. You do it well.
Let us look at indulgences."In 1095, Urban II, propagateing the First Crusade, laid it down that a crusad to the Holy Land was a substitute for any other penance, and intailed complete remission of sin. This, of course involved an actual and hazardous crusade, the privilege, or indulgence was hedged about with careful qualifications and terrific penaties if a man reneged. Throughout the twelfth centruy, crusading was the only source of indulgences, excep in rare individual cases. kBut of course it was always these rare individual ccases (that is, the rich, the well placed, the smart cleric) which shipwrecked the principle. Early in the thirteenth Centure to those who helped merely with money and advice. Fifty years later, Innocent IV awarded indulgences without any conditions of crusader service, naturally only in special circumstances. By the end of the thirteenth centruy, indulgences were being granted fo secular princes for political reasons. Soon after, individuals were alled to buy plenary indulgences from their confessors on their death-bed; this means they could enter Heaven immediately, provided they died in a state of grace immediately after full confession. In the first six months of 1344, Clement VI granted this privilege to two hundred people in England alone; it cost them less than ten shillings each. The Pope justified this by saying; ' A pontiff should make his subjects happy." p233 "A History of Christianity" Paul Johnson.
"Athiest slimballs"???? You said it.
#4 I stand by my quote from Laythrop who is both a professor and theologian.
#6 I can't comment on the Eastern Orthodox re power and control. I can and have only commented on what I know and have seen.
Your view of the church is far too narrow. We are to leave the judging up to God. Those churches that spilt did so because the RCC was seen as not living the truth and being in error and refusing to make appropriate changes.
#9 Not all churches hide the problem. Have you read "The Church that Forgot Christ" yet? There you will see in clear writing with names and churches the lies and deceits.
#10 You haven't studied the ancient morality code of Israel. Your comment then is simply wishful thinking.
Errors
-indulgences
-use of the Eucharist contrary to the teachings of Paul and the example of Jesus.
-Continuing to perpetuate the split they caused in the first place.
-inexcusable behaviour towards the Jews in the Second World War-read "Hitler's Pope.
-upsetting their own people here with lies and deception.
-the inquisition-some six hundred years of illegal executions which were accomplished through most inhumane methods
-The support of the rich and elite in South America while ignoring the poor and the down trodden-Oscar Ramero comes to mind-personal discussion with Matthew Fox.
-the abuse of women re their place in the church-Jesus and Paul both had women disciples and preachers.
-Ridiculous annulments which are nothing more then divorce by another name. Perhaps not an error just blind stupidity.
-the coverup, lies and deceits of child molestation-Read "The Church that Forgot Christ".
-Regardess of how you feel about the behaviour of the parents-by condemning the use of contraceptives the church condemns innocent children to a horrible death. We do know what Jesus said about "these little ones".
The issue of what happened in the local congregation that you claim not to understand is clearly written. Your refusal to respond is simply a cop out but you do that well.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Ted wrote: -inexcusable behaviour towards the Jews in the Second World War-read "Hitler's Pope."
Ted :-6
I think you should read some critical analysis of the aforementioned book.
http://sycophants.info/piusxii.html
That's just a primer. You recommend a lot of books, I hope maybe you'll be open to some recommendations yourself. There's a very interesting one called "Hitler, the War, and the Pope" by Ronald Rychlak which I think could help flesh out your understanding of this particular situation.
This is a good read on the Inquisition if you can excuse a few typoes in the transcription:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm
They also have an interesting article on indulgences:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm
Grüss dich Gott
BJ :-6
Ted :-6
I think you should read some critical analysis of the aforementioned book.
http://sycophants.info/piusxii.html
That's just a primer. You recommend a lot of books, I hope maybe you'll be open to some recommendations yourself. There's a very interesting one called "Hitler, the War, and the Pope" by Ronald Rychlak which I think could help flesh out your understanding of this particular situation.
This is a good read on the Inquisition if you can excuse a few typoes in the transcription:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm
They also have an interesting article on indulgences:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm
Grüss dich Gott
BJ :-6
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Ted wrote: 1. The RCC is not the only true church. The church is the body of Christ which includes all who call Jesus Lord.
2. It was I and the congregation who were both deceived and lied to by the Bishop and the Priest concerning the nature of our relationship. But you have nicely sidestepped the issue by saying it belongs in another thread. I call that creative dancing. You do it well.
3. Let us look at indulgences...."Athiest slimballs"???? You said it.
4. Your view of the church is far too narrow. We are to leave the judging up to God. Those churches that spilt did so because the RCC was seen as not living the truth and being in error and refusing to make appropriate changes.
5. Not all churches hide the problem. Have you read "The Church that Forgot Christ" yet? There you will see in clear writing with names and churches the lies and deceits.
Errors
a. -indulgences
b. -use of the Eucharist contrary to the teachings of Paul and the example of Jesus.
c. -Continuing to perpetuate the split they caused in the first place.
d. -inexcusable behaviour towards the Jews in the Second World War-read "Hitler's Pope.
e. -upsetting their own people here with lies and deception.
f. -the inquisition-some six hundred years of illegal executions which were accomplished through most inhumane methods
g. -The support of the rich and elite in South America while ignoring the poor and the down trodden-Oscar Ramero comes to mind-personal discussion with Matthew Fox.
h. -the abuse of women re their place in the church-Jesus and Paul both had women disciples and preachers.
i. -Ridiculous annulments which are nothing more then divorce by another name. Perhaps not an error just blind stupidity.
j. -the coverup, lies and deceits of child molestation-Read "The Church that Forgot Christ".
k. -Regardess of how you feel about the behaviour of the parents-by condemning the use of contraceptives the church condemns innocent children to a horrible death. We do know what Jesus said about "these little ones".
l. The issue of what happened in the local congregation that you claim not to understand is clearly written. Your refusal to respond is simply a cop out but you do that well.I'll address your initial responses to my previous post and then the so-called 'errors'.
1. Here I can only quote Scripture: [To Simon]'Thou art Peter (Kepha) and upon this rock (kepha) I will build my community, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it...[To the Apostles]Receive the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven'. Here he clearly established a hierarchy. He did not give that authority to heretics or the self-appointed or -annointed. The only thing I find in the Gospels which supports your position - slightly - is the account of some of the Apostles coming to Jesus and telling him that they found some outsiders preaching in His name and told them to stop, and Jesus replied, 'Do not stop them, for anyone who is not against us is for us', but that is far from a blanket endorsement of such people. One can only hope that the outsiders in question eventually found their way into Christ's true community, and that is my hope for outsiders today.
2. Well, Ted, here we are getting nowhere because I obviously wasn't part of the specific situation and, without knowing the entire story, from both sides, don't feel qualified to comment. You seem to be saying that the federated (RC/Anglican) congregation had certain ideas or ideals to which the RC bishop objected. That would be within his authority, whether you agree with his position or not. He's the bishop, you're not. What has that to do with 'lies and deceit'? If you want to describe the matter in more detail, I'd be interested to learn more about it and would gladly comment. Right now I have very little idea of what you're talking about.
3. Well, once again (Lordy, I hate to keep saying that, I wish that this exchange would go somewhere other than in circles) what does that have to do with the modern Church? There is no question that the temporal leadership of the Chruch was corrupt during that period in its history. It is unthinkable that such people could even believe in God, since that would include the knowledge that they would eventually face His judgment, hence my reference to 'Atheist slimeballs'. That the Church survived that period in its history is highly significant!
4. The error was in the temporal rather than the spiritual. As I pointed out early in the discussion, the doctrines of the Church today go back to the earliest centuries of Christianity, and that is one of main reasons that the RCC remains so attractive to converts. The various 'reformers', under the subterfuge of opposing the obvious corruption in the Church's temporal leadership, almost immediately began changing DOCTRINE, which was NOT corrupt, the selling of indulgences being the only notable abuse of doctrine. So each of the 'reformers' formed his own bastardized version of Christianity, attractive no doubt to many but bastardized just the same.
5. No, I haven't read it nor seen it at a library or bookstore. How long has it been in print? Why not just save me time and specify the 'lies and deceits' so I will some idea of what you're tallking about?
Errors:
a. Where is the 'error'? Surely you're not implying that the Church still sells indulgences. Are you? Do you even understand what they are?
b. We've already discussed that. Where is the 'error'? The RCC will not communicate non-members, the Anglicans will. Sounds like a simple difference of opinion to me.
c. By remaining loyal to Church doctrine and tradition rather than accepting the heresies of the 'reformers'? LOL! You are addressing the wrong side here!
d. Absolute nonsense. And way beyond the scope of this thread. The Church saved thousands of Jews and others during WWII. Of course, having its headquarters in the middle of a fascist country didn't help.
e. Now you're getting really tedious. List the lies and deceptions. I don't know of any.
f. Well, Ted, we have already covered that. It's a fact of world history and of Church history. You were challenged to present evidence that the Church has 'been in error for a long time'. What is the connection with ancient history?
By the way, not to excuse the Inquisition in any way (nor has the Church done so for hundreds of years), but the total number of victims (deaths) during the entire Spanish Inquisition was fewer than 2,000, and this figure is from SECULAR historians, not from the Church. That is fewer than in the single attack by Muslim terrorists, also done 'in God's name', on the WTC on September 11, 2001. Apples and oranges? Perhaps. But when people like yourself make all sorts of wild accusations about the present-day RCC and then attempt to support them by falling back on events of hundreds of years ago, I gotta chuckle. If that's the best you can do, why even bother?
g. This is an allegation of which I'm unaware. Support the rich how? Ignoring the poor how?
h. What??? I don't of any religious organization in the world that exalts and glorifies women as the Catholic Church has done throughout its history. How am I, a Catholic woman, being 'abused' by my Church? Outrageous!
i. I wonder how much you know about the subject. Without going into details, my first marriage was easily annulled, because it clearly fulfilled the requirements for annulment, which are quite straightforward and logical, not ridiculous or stupid at all. My cousin had an unsuccessful marriage nearly half a century ago and has never been able to receive an annulment. Why? The facts don't justify one. If you think that the RCC's strict rules regarding matrimony are unfair, blame Jesus Christ, who spoke quite forcefully and unambiguously on the subject. The RCC's postioin on divorce upholds His, the various Protestant denoms simply ignore Him, what is their justification? You are shifting the blame here.
j. I am not disputing the coverup. While outrageous, it hardly constitutes an error of Church doctrine as you have alleged.. The 'lies and deceptions' you keep refusing to list or document.
k. What??? What on earth are you talking about? How does the Church's position that family planning should be by natural rather than artificial means 'condemn innocent children to a horrible death'? What am I missing here?
By the way, nowadays the ban on artificial birth control is rarely discussed; it seems to be on its way to becoming a non-issue, with faithful Catholics simply following their consciences in this regard.
l. Here you have lost me completely. What are you talking about? Are you going back to no. 2? Believe me, Ted, I know virtually nothing of your situation here, your explanation having been quite sketchy and ambiguous. If you'd like to lay it out more clearly, I'll try to respond futher. This seems to be the focus of your discontent with the RCC, and I feel quite frustrated that I'm unable to respond to a greater extent. I'm just not able to do so because I have nothing more than a very foggy notion of what you're talking about. Certainly, as a former member of such of a federated congregation, I have genuine interest.
That's really about as far as I can carry this thread unless you start going somewhere with it other than around in the same circles and ruts. I have requested time after time that you keep discussion of the abuse scandal separate from other issues, you have refused to do so, and that, in my opinion, along with your allusions to ancient history, compromises your postion significantly, which is to say, those are 'cheap shots'.
I can assure you that ,even at my advanced age, if I thought my Church was lying, deceiving, and/or in 'error for a long time' regarding its origins and doctrines, I would go elsewhere. But your weak defense of your position has actually bolstered my faith rather than lessened it. If that's the best you can do, I have definitely been doing something right all these years!
2. It was I and the congregation who were both deceived and lied to by the Bishop and the Priest concerning the nature of our relationship. But you have nicely sidestepped the issue by saying it belongs in another thread. I call that creative dancing. You do it well.
3. Let us look at indulgences...."Athiest slimballs"???? You said it.
4. Your view of the church is far too narrow. We are to leave the judging up to God. Those churches that spilt did so because the RCC was seen as not living the truth and being in error and refusing to make appropriate changes.
5. Not all churches hide the problem. Have you read "The Church that Forgot Christ" yet? There you will see in clear writing with names and churches the lies and deceits.
Errors
a. -indulgences
b. -use of the Eucharist contrary to the teachings of Paul and the example of Jesus.
c. -Continuing to perpetuate the split they caused in the first place.
d. -inexcusable behaviour towards the Jews in the Second World War-read "Hitler's Pope.
e. -upsetting their own people here with lies and deception.
f. -the inquisition-some six hundred years of illegal executions which were accomplished through most inhumane methods
g. -The support of the rich and elite in South America while ignoring the poor and the down trodden-Oscar Ramero comes to mind-personal discussion with Matthew Fox.
h. -the abuse of women re their place in the church-Jesus and Paul both had women disciples and preachers.
i. -Ridiculous annulments which are nothing more then divorce by another name. Perhaps not an error just blind stupidity.
j. -the coverup, lies and deceits of child molestation-Read "The Church that Forgot Christ".
k. -Regardess of how you feel about the behaviour of the parents-by condemning the use of contraceptives the church condemns innocent children to a horrible death. We do know what Jesus said about "these little ones".
l. The issue of what happened in the local congregation that you claim not to understand is clearly written. Your refusal to respond is simply a cop out but you do that well.I'll address your initial responses to my previous post and then the so-called 'errors'.
1. Here I can only quote Scripture: [To Simon]'Thou art Peter (Kepha) and upon this rock (kepha) I will build my community, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it...[To the Apostles]Receive the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven'. Here he clearly established a hierarchy. He did not give that authority to heretics or the self-appointed or -annointed. The only thing I find in the Gospels which supports your position - slightly - is the account of some of the Apostles coming to Jesus and telling him that they found some outsiders preaching in His name and told them to stop, and Jesus replied, 'Do not stop them, for anyone who is not against us is for us', but that is far from a blanket endorsement of such people. One can only hope that the outsiders in question eventually found their way into Christ's true community, and that is my hope for outsiders today.
2. Well, Ted, here we are getting nowhere because I obviously wasn't part of the specific situation and, without knowing the entire story, from both sides, don't feel qualified to comment. You seem to be saying that the federated (RC/Anglican) congregation had certain ideas or ideals to which the RC bishop objected. That would be within his authority, whether you agree with his position or not. He's the bishop, you're not. What has that to do with 'lies and deceit'? If you want to describe the matter in more detail, I'd be interested to learn more about it and would gladly comment. Right now I have very little idea of what you're talking about.
3. Well, once again (Lordy, I hate to keep saying that, I wish that this exchange would go somewhere other than in circles) what does that have to do with the modern Church? There is no question that the temporal leadership of the Chruch was corrupt during that period in its history. It is unthinkable that such people could even believe in God, since that would include the knowledge that they would eventually face His judgment, hence my reference to 'Atheist slimeballs'. That the Church survived that period in its history is highly significant!
4. The error was in the temporal rather than the spiritual. As I pointed out early in the discussion, the doctrines of the Church today go back to the earliest centuries of Christianity, and that is one of main reasons that the RCC remains so attractive to converts. The various 'reformers', under the subterfuge of opposing the obvious corruption in the Church's temporal leadership, almost immediately began changing DOCTRINE, which was NOT corrupt, the selling of indulgences being the only notable abuse of doctrine. So each of the 'reformers' formed his own bastardized version of Christianity, attractive no doubt to many but bastardized just the same.
5. No, I haven't read it nor seen it at a library or bookstore. How long has it been in print? Why not just save me time and specify the 'lies and deceits' so I will some idea of what you're tallking about?
Errors:
a. Where is the 'error'? Surely you're not implying that the Church still sells indulgences. Are you? Do you even understand what they are?
b. We've already discussed that. Where is the 'error'? The RCC will not communicate non-members, the Anglicans will. Sounds like a simple difference of opinion to me.
c. By remaining loyal to Church doctrine and tradition rather than accepting the heresies of the 'reformers'? LOL! You are addressing the wrong side here!
d. Absolute nonsense. And way beyond the scope of this thread. The Church saved thousands of Jews and others during WWII. Of course, having its headquarters in the middle of a fascist country didn't help.
e. Now you're getting really tedious. List the lies and deceptions. I don't know of any.
f. Well, Ted, we have already covered that. It's a fact of world history and of Church history. You were challenged to present evidence that the Church has 'been in error for a long time'. What is the connection with ancient history?
By the way, not to excuse the Inquisition in any way (nor has the Church done so for hundreds of years), but the total number of victims (deaths) during the entire Spanish Inquisition was fewer than 2,000, and this figure is from SECULAR historians, not from the Church. That is fewer than in the single attack by Muslim terrorists, also done 'in God's name', on the WTC on September 11, 2001. Apples and oranges? Perhaps. But when people like yourself make all sorts of wild accusations about the present-day RCC and then attempt to support them by falling back on events of hundreds of years ago, I gotta chuckle. If that's the best you can do, why even bother?
g. This is an allegation of which I'm unaware. Support the rich how? Ignoring the poor how?
h. What??? I don't of any religious organization in the world that exalts and glorifies women as the Catholic Church has done throughout its history. How am I, a Catholic woman, being 'abused' by my Church? Outrageous!
i. I wonder how much you know about the subject. Without going into details, my first marriage was easily annulled, because it clearly fulfilled the requirements for annulment, which are quite straightforward and logical, not ridiculous or stupid at all. My cousin had an unsuccessful marriage nearly half a century ago and has never been able to receive an annulment. Why? The facts don't justify one. If you think that the RCC's strict rules regarding matrimony are unfair, blame Jesus Christ, who spoke quite forcefully and unambiguously on the subject. The RCC's postioin on divorce upholds His, the various Protestant denoms simply ignore Him, what is their justification? You are shifting the blame here.
j. I am not disputing the coverup. While outrageous, it hardly constitutes an error of Church doctrine as you have alleged.. The 'lies and deceptions' you keep refusing to list or document.
k. What??? What on earth are you talking about? How does the Church's position that family planning should be by natural rather than artificial means 'condemn innocent children to a horrible death'? What am I missing here?
By the way, nowadays the ban on artificial birth control is rarely discussed; it seems to be on its way to becoming a non-issue, with faithful Catholics simply following their consciences in this regard.
l. Here you have lost me completely. What are you talking about? Are you going back to no. 2? Believe me, Ted, I know virtually nothing of your situation here, your explanation having been quite sketchy and ambiguous. If you'd like to lay it out more clearly, I'll try to respond futher. This seems to be the focus of your discontent with the RCC, and I feel quite frustrated that I'm unable to respond to a greater extent. I'm just not able to do so because I have nothing more than a very foggy notion of what you're talking about. Certainly, as a former member of such of a federated congregation, I have genuine interest.
That's really about as far as I can carry this thread unless you start going somewhere with it other than around in the same circles and ruts. I have requested time after time that you keep discussion of the abuse scandal separate from other issues, you have refused to do so, and that, in my opinion, along with your allusions to ancient history, compromises your postion significantly, which is to say, those are 'cheap shots'.
I can assure you that ,even at my advanced age, if I thought my Church was lying, deceiving, and/or in 'error for a long time' regarding its origins and doctrines, I would go elsewhere. But your weak defense of your position has actually bolstered my faith rather than lessened it. If that's the best you can do, I have definitely been doing something right all these years!
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
We certainly disagree on more then we agree. However, that is life.
That’s the beauty of boards like this Ted. A chance to test the validity of our respective (dis)beliefs.
It is amazing though how many folks denied the haulocaust within 40 years of the second world war.
Such denial is against overwhelming evidence to the contrary Ted, nothing like the situation we face trying to find a historical Jesus.
There is noting that I can say that will convince you of the historical Jesus. I suppose what we have is basically circumstantial evidence. Josephus, Nero, Tacitus metion Jesus. While Paul never met the historical Jesus he does mention him frequently.
I’m sure you know that all the hearsay accounts from people such as Josephus, Tacitus and others have problems that have never been resolved
Oral tradition was mentioning Jesus within 20 years of his death. We also have the witness of 2000years.
Evidence is weighed not counted Ted. If x number of thousands of years witness is a pointer to the validity of a particular religious belief, we’d all be Hindu’s!
Every ancient religion had a period of oral transmission. If it is to be argued that the shorter the period of oral transmission, the more likely the truth of the message, then Allah is the one true god.
Numerous written versions of the Koran were in circulation less than twenty years after Mohammed’s death (632), an official version had to be produced by Uthman between 644-656 to stop his troops fighting over which of the earlier versions was correct.
Something must have happened to make this name stick to say nothing bout the 2000 years of history that have been changed by this name.
The (problematic) conversion of Constantine, and later by his son, and subsequent emperors using Imperial funds to financially support the nascent church and help it spread throughout the Roman Empire, coupled with the enthusiasm for destroying heretics and heretical works meant there was very little to stand in the way of what we know today as Christianity. History is written by the winners.
"The massive layer representing the Christian construction of terra sancta, Holy Land, rests atop a frail and elusive layer representing a simple Jewilsh peasant life; excavations underneath later Christian structures uncovered no synagogue, but also no fortification, no palace, no basilica, no bathhouse, no paved street, nothing. Instead, olive presses, wine presses, water cisterns, grain silos, and ginding stones scattered around caves tell of a population that lived hovels and simple peasant houses."
Now I have no problem with that description of Nazareth. Both Reed and Crossan seem to have no problem with that position.
As I said, looser standards Ted. Claiming a massive layer covers an “elusive†first century Nazareth is fine, as long as the person making the claim provides some evidence to support it.
The quote from ‘Excavating Jesus’ is interesting, not because of what it says, but because of what it doesn’t say. Nobody would expect bathhouses etc. in a small agricultural community. But what you would expect to find are the remains of agricultural implements, pottery, glass, and small domestic and personal items. The natural detritus of habitation that would help to confirm the site was settled during the Herodian period.
Despite archaeological digs spanning fifty years, not one single artefact that can prove that the area was used for domestic purposes has been found to support the claims of Reed and Crossan for the existence of undiscovered “hovels and simple peasant housesâ€Â.
Far more likely is that the meagre finds from these digs come from use of these limestone caves for storage by the inhabitants of Japha, a town of approx. 17,000 people just one and a half miles from the supposed site of a first century Nazareth. Japha was destroyed by the Roman 10th Legion commanded by Trajan in July 67AD.
That’s the beauty of boards like this Ted. A chance to test the validity of our respective (dis)beliefs.
It is amazing though how many folks denied the haulocaust within 40 years of the second world war.
Such denial is against overwhelming evidence to the contrary Ted, nothing like the situation we face trying to find a historical Jesus.
There is noting that I can say that will convince you of the historical Jesus. I suppose what we have is basically circumstantial evidence. Josephus, Nero, Tacitus metion Jesus. While Paul never met the historical Jesus he does mention him frequently.
I’m sure you know that all the hearsay accounts from people such as Josephus, Tacitus and others have problems that have never been resolved
Oral tradition was mentioning Jesus within 20 years of his death. We also have the witness of 2000years.
Evidence is weighed not counted Ted. If x number of thousands of years witness is a pointer to the validity of a particular religious belief, we’d all be Hindu’s!
Every ancient religion had a period of oral transmission. If it is to be argued that the shorter the period of oral transmission, the more likely the truth of the message, then Allah is the one true god.
Numerous written versions of the Koran were in circulation less than twenty years after Mohammed’s death (632), an official version had to be produced by Uthman between 644-656 to stop his troops fighting over which of the earlier versions was correct.
Something must have happened to make this name stick to say nothing bout the 2000 years of history that have been changed by this name.
The (problematic) conversion of Constantine, and later by his son, and subsequent emperors using Imperial funds to financially support the nascent church and help it spread throughout the Roman Empire, coupled with the enthusiasm for destroying heretics and heretical works meant there was very little to stand in the way of what we know today as Christianity. History is written by the winners.
"The massive layer representing the Christian construction of terra sancta, Holy Land, rests atop a frail and elusive layer representing a simple Jewilsh peasant life; excavations underneath later Christian structures uncovered no synagogue, but also no fortification, no palace, no basilica, no bathhouse, no paved street, nothing. Instead, olive presses, wine presses, water cisterns, grain silos, and ginding stones scattered around caves tell of a population that lived hovels and simple peasant houses."
Now I have no problem with that description of Nazareth. Both Reed and Crossan seem to have no problem with that position.
As I said, looser standards Ted. Claiming a massive layer covers an “elusive†first century Nazareth is fine, as long as the person making the claim provides some evidence to support it.
The quote from ‘Excavating Jesus’ is interesting, not because of what it says, but because of what it doesn’t say. Nobody would expect bathhouses etc. in a small agricultural community. But what you would expect to find are the remains of agricultural implements, pottery, glass, and small domestic and personal items. The natural detritus of habitation that would help to confirm the site was settled during the Herodian period.
Despite archaeological digs spanning fifty years, not one single artefact that can prove that the area was used for domestic purposes has been found to support the claims of Reed and Crossan for the existence of undiscovered “hovels and simple peasant housesâ€Â.
Far more likely is that the meagre finds from these digs come from use of these limestone caves for storage by the inhabitants of Japha, a town of approx. 17,000 people just one and a half miles from the supposed site of a first century Nazareth. Japha was destroyed by the Roman 10th Legion commanded by Trajan in July 67AD.
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Bronwen:-6
Nice try, very slippery indeed.
#1 According to Biblical scholars that quote does not come from the historical Jesus but the early church giving itself permission to do what a few elite wanted. "The Authentic Gospel of Jesus Christ" Geza Vermes.
#2 How much plainer can I make it the Bishop agreed that we could continue. He continued to lead us on in this believe with us following his directions for discussion etc. He lied to us in that he said we c ould continue on and that he had no intention to change his position all the while, as it became apparent, he had no such intentions. That is both deception and lies. I suppose since he is a bishop it is ok to do both. No in my books
If you read the book "The Church that Forgot Christ" you will read of many coverups and lies and deceptilon and the continued sending out of such priests to other congregations that did not know of the trouble. I gess since the Bishops were involved and the priests those behaviours are acceptable. No in my books.
#3 I guess you didn't read the quote very well. Popes were involved in this nonsensical scheme.
#4 The error was temporal. So what. The church created the problem and then tries to pass it on to others. I couldn't care less whether it was temporal or doctrinal.. The church caused the problem and then blames everyone else.
#5 Chapters/Indigo have it on the shelf.
b. the error can be found in I Cor. Paul was chastising the church in Corinth for the same behaviour. According to Laythrop-theologian-if it is limited to a particular group of Christian then it is neither the Lord's table not the Eucharist.
c. Not at all. My loyalty is to the Lord not the church as such. Loyalty to the church is not synonymous with loyalty to Jesus Christ.
f. It seems to me that even one death in an illegal and inhumane method is one too many. What has the church done to make this right?
.g My reference is rather simple Matthew Fox explained in great detail what was going on in South America and of course the eradication of any priests who supported liberation theiology which is completely biblical. I have also received confirmation of this from other priests.
Abuse of women. You are in a minority then. I have many RC friends of the female persuasion who have felt betrayed by their church. In fact recently severl women were ordained in the Catholic church contrary to the orders of th e Pope. These have not been the first. Women often complain on the media.
i. Well I am aware of several folks who laugh at the term annulment. Many of them RC who call it another word for divorce.
k. It seems to me that in denying contraception while knowing that sexual activity will take place any way is wrong. These people are going to have sex whether you or I like it. We can consider it immoral or whatevery you like. As a result of that sex children will be born. If the parents have AIDS these children are born with AIDS. These children have become the victims of an ill conceived doctrine. The church is condemning these children to a horrible death. I guess that kind of death is ok as long as the church can grant them absolution. The children suffer for the error of their parents. Nice thought.
It seems to me you want to make a distinction between temporaral and doctrinal. Unfortunately, I couldn't care lest about the distinction. If the church commits an error and does not make it right it is seriously defective. I have been told by Theologian Father Mallow that the church must avoid such conflicts and revelations at any cost. Clearly it is saying if the truth will cause problems then be creative in your stories or hiding.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Nice try, very slippery indeed.
#1 According to Biblical scholars that quote does not come from the historical Jesus but the early church giving itself permission to do what a few elite wanted. "The Authentic Gospel of Jesus Christ" Geza Vermes.
#2 How much plainer can I make it the Bishop agreed that we could continue. He continued to lead us on in this believe with us following his directions for discussion etc. He lied to us in that he said we c ould continue on and that he had no intention to change his position all the while, as it became apparent, he had no such intentions. That is both deception and lies. I suppose since he is a bishop it is ok to do both. No in my books
If you read the book "The Church that Forgot Christ" you will read of many coverups and lies and deceptilon and the continued sending out of such priests to other congregations that did not know of the trouble. I gess since the Bishops were involved and the priests those behaviours are acceptable. No in my books.
#3 I guess you didn't read the quote very well. Popes were involved in this nonsensical scheme.
#4 The error was temporal. So what. The church created the problem and then tries to pass it on to others. I couldn't care less whether it was temporal or doctrinal.. The church caused the problem and then blames everyone else.
#5 Chapters/Indigo have it on the shelf.
b. the error can be found in I Cor. Paul was chastising the church in Corinth for the same behaviour. According to Laythrop-theologian-if it is limited to a particular group of Christian then it is neither the Lord's table not the Eucharist.
c. Not at all. My loyalty is to the Lord not the church as such. Loyalty to the church is not synonymous with loyalty to Jesus Christ.
f. It seems to me that even one death in an illegal and inhumane method is one too many. What has the church done to make this right?
.g My reference is rather simple Matthew Fox explained in great detail what was going on in South America and of course the eradication of any priests who supported liberation theiology which is completely biblical. I have also received confirmation of this from other priests.
Abuse of women. You are in a minority then. I have many RC friends of the female persuasion who have felt betrayed by their church. In fact recently severl women were ordained in the Catholic church contrary to the orders of th e Pope. These have not been the first. Women often complain on the media.
i. Well I am aware of several folks who laugh at the term annulment. Many of them RC who call it another word for divorce.
k. It seems to me that in denying contraception while knowing that sexual activity will take place any way is wrong. These people are going to have sex whether you or I like it. We can consider it immoral or whatevery you like. As a result of that sex children will be born. If the parents have AIDS these children are born with AIDS. These children have become the victims of an ill conceived doctrine. The church is condemning these children to a horrible death. I guess that kind of death is ok as long as the church can grant them absolution. The children suffer for the error of their parents. Nice thought.
It seems to me you want to make a distinction between temporaral and doctrinal. Unfortunately, I couldn't care lest about the distinction. If the church commits an error and does not make it right it is seriously defective. I have been told by Theologian Father Mallow that the church must avoid such conflicts and revelations at any cost. Clearly it is saying if the truth will cause problems then be creative in your stories or hiding.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Blackjack:-6
I did look up and read those sites. Clearly there is a dispute concerning Pope Pius XII. It is one that I cannot resolve. The stories are circulated by a lot of folks.
The other two sites are ok but they are from the Catholic Encyclopedia and hardly unbiased.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I did look up and read those sites. Clearly there is a dispute concerning Pope Pius XII. It is one that I cannot resolve. The stories are circulated by a lot of folks.
The other two sites are ok but they are from the Catholic Encyclopedia and hardly unbiased.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
memebias:-6
I cannot accept that the denial of the haulocaust"is evidence to the contrary". That is an assumption that cannot be substantiated.
You are quite right about the ancient writings that I mentioned. At this point they may be questioned but they have never been proven false. Yet I really don't put all that much in their comments at any rate.
You are correct that evidence is weighted and not counted. However, it seems to me that millions of folks over the centuries have had experiences that they attribute to their faith. This says nothing about the documented miracles at Lourds etc. As I said before I have also had my own experiences that as far as I am concerned are conclusive. You mentioned subjective. In light of quantum theory and my own readings of some of the philosophers and scientists like Arthur Peacock and Paul Davies I have come to the conclusion that pure subjectivity is highly elusive. No matter what you observe or see or the gathering of statistics they are still filtered through the human brain and cannot avoid subjectivity. Four doctors and a sick child=4different diagnoses. The same situation occurs in science such as astronomy and biology.
Oral transmissions of stories is common in all religious faiths. Generall I would think that they are had a beginning event that instigated them. Thus I believe that they do add some weight to the evidence. I would go even further to suggest that this is true of all the faiths and that all the great faiths of the world are based on some form of truth not just Christianity.
I think your reference to Constantine is not all that well founded. The church had spread quite a bit by his time. The writings that today make of the canon of scriptures were are written well before constantine came on the scene. It was the counsels that established the canon of scriptures. Constantine called at least one of them but acted as chairman whereas it was a collection of the ancient clergy and bishops that established the present canon of scripture. There was much discussion concerning which writings most closelhy seemed to represent the teachings of Jesus.
It is all too easy to dismiss oral tradition and the work of the counsels.
As far as the quote I gave you goes I think it shows quite well that something was going on in Nazareth. It seems good enough for Reed and Crossan although I am aware that that does not necessarily make it the truth. On the other hand Paul was talking about Nazareth as soon as 10 years after Jesus death. Of course we also have the problem of Bethlehem. In fact in Ancient times there were two Bethlehems in the holy land.
There are also many problems created for those who read the Bible literally but that is an whole other issue.
Personally I like many of the worlds religious scholars have no problem with the historical Jesus as the world does not seem to have a problem with the historical Buddha.
The study of history is not a pure science nor is it without its problems. In many cases we are reading hearsay and second hand evidence. It cannot be judged the way we tend to judge a scientific study which as we have lately learned is not always accurate either--quantum theory and the whole idea of objectivity add their own problems.
Such as it is. I have no illusions that I convinced you of anything but we are exchanging ideas and that in itself is good.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I cannot accept that the denial of the haulocaust"is evidence to the contrary". That is an assumption that cannot be substantiated.
You are quite right about the ancient writings that I mentioned. At this point they may be questioned but they have never been proven false. Yet I really don't put all that much in their comments at any rate.
You are correct that evidence is weighted and not counted. However, it seems to me that millions of folks over the centuries have had experiences that they attribute to their faith. This says nothing about the documented miracles at Lourds etc. As I said before I have also had my own experiences that as far as I am concerned are conclusive. You mentioned subjective. In light of quantum theory and my own readings of some of the philosophers and scientists like Arthur Peacock and Paul Davies I have come to the conclusion that pure subjectivity is highly elusive. No matter what you observe or see or the gathering of statistics they are still filtered through the human brain and cannot avoid subjectivity. Four doctors and a sick child=4different diagnoses. The same situation occurs in science such as astronomy and biology.
Oral transmissions of stories is common in all religious faiths. Generall I would think that they are had a beginning event that instigated them. Thus I believe that they do add some weight to the evidence. I would go even further to suggest that this is true of all the faiths and that all the great faiths of the world are based on some form of truth not just Christianity.
I think your reference to Constantine is not all that well founded. The church had spread quite a bit by his time. The writings that today make of the canon of scriptures were are written well before constantine came on the scene. It was the counsels that established the canon of scriptures. Constantine called at least one of them but acted as chairman whereas it was a collection of the ancient clergy and bishops that established the present canon of scripture. There was much discussion concerning which writings most closelhy seemed to represent the teachings of Jesus.
It is all too easy to dismiss oral tradition and the work of the counsels.
As far as the quote I gave you goes I think it shows quite well that something was going on in Nazareth. It seems good enough for Reed and Crossan although I am aware that that does not necessarily make it the truth. On the other hand Paul was talking about Nazareth as soon as 10 years after Jesus death. Of course we also have the problem of Bethlehem. In fact in Ancient times there were two Bethlehems in the holy land.
There are also many problems created for those who read the Bible literally but that is an whole other issue.
Personally I like many of the worlds religious scholars have no problem with the historical Jesus as the world does not seem to have a problem with the historical Buddha.
The study of history is not a pure science nor is it without its problems. In many cases we are reading hearsay and second hand evidence. It cannot be judged the way we tend to judge a scientific study which as we have lately learned is not always accurate either--quantum theory and the whole idea of objectivity add their own problems.
Such as it is. I have no illusions that I convinced you of anything but we are exchanging ideas and that in itself is good.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Ted wrote: The other two sites are ok but they are from the Catholic Encyclopedia and hardly unbiased.
Well, I thought if you're going to argue against the Catholic Church's official position there'd be no better place to get it than straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak. And I think would be silly to simply assume that non-Catholic writers and historians are less biased than Catholic ones.
Well, I thought if you're going to argue against the Catholic Church's official position there'd be no better place to get it than straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak. And I think would be silly to simply assume that non-Catholic writers and historians are less biased than Catholic ones.
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Well, Ted, I said in the previous post that if this series of exchanges didn't start going somewhere I would end my participation. Since your response, as expected, simply repeated the same old nonsense that is what I'm going to do. So that you won't be the only one repeating yourself, let me do likewise and say, 'If that's the best you can do, why even bother?' Let me just close with a few general comments:
Making claims based on obscure books that the other poster is then supposed to somehow find and read before responding is, I think, an abuse of the intent of these forums. I have neither the time nor the resources to do that. Why not just quote, IN BRIEF, the material that you think supports your position and give the author, title, year, publisher, page number, etc., as is the normal procedure in citing sources? Also, I know nothing of 'Laythrop-Theolgian' or 'Father Mallow'. Claiming that a Catholic priest or bishop told you something contrary to Church doctrine, with the implication that that person must be right and two thousand years of Church history wrong is really quite silly. Silly and transparent.
I don't deny that Vermes has excellent credentials as a Bible scholar. The fact remains, he is in the business of selling books. In case you havven't noticed, there is a current trend toward producing books that give thought-provoking but highly unlikely alternatives to the concensus of Bible scholarship. Presuming that such speculations are fact simply because they support your position proves nothing, except possibly your own gullibility.
And just for the record, there have never been any women ordained to the priesthood in the Roman Catholic Church and it is not likely that there will be any time in the near future. That heretics may have gone through the motions of doing so is possible, though I haven't heard of that. If true, that would be nothing but a charade, and a rather sacrilegious one at that. Also, it is not logical. If the women involved really want to become priests, what would be the point of participating in a sham ceremony rather than becoming Anglicans and attempting to be ordained legitimately? Of course, this is not to say that the Anglican Church would automatically ordain anyone, male or female, who sought ordination. But that is a separate issue.
If you'd like to start new threads on any of the many - TOO MANY - subjects you've rolled together in this rather pointless thread, I will participate in good faith. But doing so would probably not provide you with the wiggle room on which you rely so heavily.
Making claims based on obscure books that the other poster is then supposed to somehow find and read before responding is, I think, an abuse of the intent of these forums. I have neither the time nor the resources to do that. Why not just quote, IN BRIEF, the material that you think supports your position and give the author, title, year, publisher, page number, etc., as is the normal procedure in citing sources? Also, I know nothing of 'Laythrop-Theolgian' or 'Father Mallow'. Claiming that a Catholic priest or bishop told you something contrary to Church doctrine, with the implication that that person must be right and two thousand years of Church history wrong is really quite silly. Silly and transparent.
I don't deny that Vermes has excellent credentials as a Bible scholar. The fact remains, he is in the business of selling books. In case you havven't noticed, there is a current trend toward producing books that give thought-provoking but highly unlikely alternatives to the concensus of Bible scholarship. Presuming that such speculations are fact simply because they support your position proves nothing, except possibly your own gullibility.
And just for the record, there have never been any women ordained to the priesthood in the Roman Catholic Church and it is not likely that there will be any time in the near future. That heretics may have gone through the motions of doing so is possible, though I haven't heard of that. If true, that would be nothing but a charade, and a rather sacrilegious one at that. Also, it is not logical. If the women involved really want to become priests, what would be the point of participating in a sham ceremony rather than becoming Anglicans and attempting to be ordained legitimately? Of course, this is not to say that the Anglican Church would automatically ordain anyone, male or female, who sought ordination. But that is a separate issue.
If you'd like to start new threads on any of the many - TOO MANY - subjects you've rolled together in this rather pointless thread, I will participate in good faith. But doing so would probably not provide you with the wiggle room on which you rely so heavily.
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Bronwen:-6
You are apparently well coached by the RCC. .
Having said that I also notice that you continually refuse to comment on clear posts and statements. Of course I never expected you to get the book afformentioned . Perhaps you are afraid of the truth. The comment about Vermes being in the book selling business is simply a slap at and rejection of excellent scholarship.
Of course you don't know who Laythrop is. Though I did quote and reference his book. I didn't expect you to look that up either as it is clearly contrary to your churches teaching.
Having said all of that I am not against the wonderful Catholic priests and bishops whom I have had the pleasure of knowing. They are indeed wonderful people. One of them a very wise man was not only appalled at his churches stand on the Eucharist but refused to accept it; God bless him-a true Christian. Many of my friends are RC and quite a few of them feel as I do.:-6
Anyway not all is well in the RCC and it is becoming public.
May the peace of Christ be with you.
Shalom
Ted
You are apparently well coached by the RCC. .
Having said that I also notice that you continually refuse to comment on clear posts and statements. Of course I never expected you to get the book afformentioned . Perhaps you are afraid of the truth. The comment about Vermes being in the book selling business is simply a slap at and rejection of excellent scholarship.
Of course you don't know who Laythrop is. Though I did quote and reference his book. I didn't expect you to look that up either as it is clearly contrary to your churches teaching.
Having said all of that I am not against the wonderful Catholic priests and bishops whom I have had the pleasure of knowing. They are indeed wonderful people. One of them a very wise man was not only appalled at his churches stand on the Eucharist but refused to accept it; God bless him-a true Christian. Many of my friends are RC and quite a few of them feel as I do.:-6
Anyway not all is well in the RCC and it is becoming public.
May the peace of Christ be with you.
Shalom
Ted