And for some Humor...

Wedge009

Rogue Leader
Originally posted by Farlander
Some sin damages our relationship with God. Other sin destroys it completely. This is the difference between venial and mortal sin.
What I have learned points to all sin destroying our otherwise perfect relationship with God. So all sin is so-called "mortal".

Originally posted by Farlander
[That sex is only allowed in marriage without contraception] is a clear cut and indisputable aspect of divine law.
Where? IIRC, Paul says in one of his letters to the Corinthians that to follow the laws of "Do not eat! Do not touch!" etc have the appearance of spirituality but really have little value in restraining human indulgence. While I think he meant this in regards to some persistent Jewish customs, I think this applies here as well.

Originally posted by Preacher
Oh, and Ghost: Living together would be a sin, so it's just as well you two don't 'have the money' to do so.
Are you talking about unmarried partners living (but not having sex) together? I wouldn't think it's necessarily a sin in itself - I have a Christian friend who lives with her boyfriend simply out of circumstance. They have separate bedrooms and everything.

Originally posted by Ghost
I (in the same way as you) can say that you are a sinful one because you don´t respect the Shabath or some other thing.
In what way do we not respect the Sabbath? The trip here is: are we observing the Sabbath to make sure we are in step with the old covenant law to the letter, or do we set aside a special day to honour God?

Originally posted by Ghost
...you believe in a man that called (and let others call him) himself Son of God...
Indeed he was a man, and yet he was also God as he proved repeatedly and ultimately when he rose from the dead.

Ghost, about your claim that Christians have changed the Torah in making the Old Testament, I don't know where you're coming from with that.

Regarding pre-marital sex... well, I've been doing a lot of searching on the 'net and the vast range of opinions really is quite interesting, if not confusing. Clearly, adultery - voluntary sexual activity with someone other than your spouse - is condemned. It could be seen that pre-marital sex is also condemned following on from that in that anyone you have sex with is also not your spouse.

It might be true that pre-marital sex is not explicitly forbidden, but the commands that marriage and uniting of flesh (ie intercourse) go together is enough for me to remain happy to stay a virgin until when (or if) I am married. I think this is the 'safe' way to go, and it also carries some practical benefits in avoiding STIs, unwanted pregnancies, etc.
 

Preacher

Swabbie
Banned
Yay, Wedgey!... You had some great responses, there, dude...
Originally posted by Wedge009

...Are you talking about unmarried partners living (but not having sex) together? I wouldn't think it's necessarily a sin in itself - I have a Christian friend who lives with her boyfriend simply out of circumstance. They have separate bedrooms and everything.
Yes and no:

IF they can somehow manage to keep their hands (& other popular body parts) away from one another, that'd obviously be OK.

BUT, let's be real: If a couple's already romatically involved w/ one another, what're the odds of that occurring?... Mebbe your friend has managed to do that so far, but it could change overnight (no pun intended)...

Regarding pre-marital sex... Clearly, adultery - voluntary sexual activity with someone other than your spouse - is condemned. It could be seen that pre-marital sex is also condemned following on from that in that anyone you have sex with is also not your spouse....
Wow. Good deductive reasoning, I never thought of it quite that way before.
I'm still working on reading back thru the OT to see if I can find some more explicit statements about the whole subject. I'll post on that when I come up w/ something.

BTW, kudos to you for having the courage to state your "V" status. Having been married myself, I can't say that; but I hope to be able to stay pure until I am able to be married again (God willing)

Originally posted by Ghost

There is peace within his followers hearts - That is wonderful for them, but does that help the victims of the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Hundred Years War,.... And is peace in the heart a fulfillment of "swords into plowshares etc."
It is wonderful for those victims who were themselves Christians, as that same "peace in their hearts" belonged to them as well, even in dying an unjust death. The misguided Christians who did these things (many of whom, no doubt, were in fact hypocrites, and thus not "real" Christians at all) have likely already answered to God for their sins. And no, it isn't a fulfillment of the "swords into plowshares" thing. That is a prophecy of judgment; one that is yet to be fulfilled in the future.

"He had done no violence." See Matt. 21:12; Mk. 11:15-16; Lk. 19:45; Lk. 19:27; Matt. 10:34 and Lk. 12:51; then judge for yourself whether this passage is truly consistent with the New Testament account of Jesus.
It is entirely consistent with the account of Christ, and His character. Most of the passages referenced refer to Jesus' "cleansing of the temple" by driving out the merchants with a whip made of cords. It is important to note that no one was killed, and there's not even any reference to anyone getting hurt at all. The point is, He saw these people blaspheming the purpose of the temple, and he took action.

Jesus was no wimp, as many secretly think of Him as being; he was a man of action and passion. Indeed, after the "cleansing", in John's gospel, his disciples recalled that it was said of Messiah that "zeal for your house consumes me" - which, btw, is taken from the Messianic Psalm 69. He could even be said to be the strongest man who ever lived: Think about it; 40 days in the desert with no food, able to call down divine "air strikes" at will yet restraining himself from doing so, boldly and decisively taking on the toughest men of His day (Pharisees & the Roman governor Pilate), go toe to toe with them, and come out victorious, able to withstand a beating/scourging that left many dead before they ever made it to the cross, and able to "leap out of a sealed tomb in a single bound" 3 days after being killed, etc... Amazing!

Two of the references are to the fact that Christ said that He came "not to bring peace, but a sword". This is a figurative declaration, in that it referred to His first coming as the suffering Servant: Once the gospel started spreading, it indeed did pit "a man against his son, a mother against her daughter.", etc. Entire families and communities were torn apart (figuratively speaking) by the fact that one or a few members became believers, and the rest of their families would be thenceforth set against them. Even today, in many Jewish or Muslim families, when a person comes to faith in Christ, their families will disown them, reckon them as dead, and even (esp, in extremist Muslim areas) try to actually kill them as a result.

The remaining reference is to a parable Christ told, not to any actual action that he took against someone.
 

Ghost

Emperor
Originally posted by Wedge009
Ghost, about your claim that Christians have changed the Torah in making the Old Testament, I don't know where you're coming from with that.
I didn´t say that christians changed the Torah.
What i said is that the early Christians to differenciate themselves from the Jews choosed some precepts/laws to accept and others to don´t.
A quck examples to make myself clear:

-Christians don´t circuncidate (for a ritual reason), they choosed that to atract more followers easily.
-You have Saints (well this isn´t for the early church, but it is against the jewish law, and if you want to be more technical against the 2nd Commandement,many persons pray to the saints instead of God, there are staues of them, like idols, and people pray to them )
-Shabatth, it isn´t that christians don´t observe it (well i bet that christians don´t observe it as is written in the Torah and some books written pre-Jesus), just they changed the 7th day, Shabatth for the first one, Rishon (in hebrew,sunday in english) this, again, to differenciate themselves from the jews
-Food, jews aren´t allowed to eat fishes withoout scales, and animals with the hoof divided in two, Christians doesn´t have restrictions with this.

And there are more examples that i can´t remember, that is what i meant with ''they accepted/choosed what they wanted''
Christians, choosed not to go with the Torah to the letter (but go with the NT )just with the 10 commandements and some other things, that as a quantity is very low of the total number of laws and precepts. only the parts that they found convenient/apropiate/other reason to accept (i´m not saying that they don´t consider the 39 books as the OT or that they only consider the Torah as OT only).

About the Messiah, as i wrote in many posts, Jesus isn´t the messiah,i said why isn´t the messiah, but at the end it´s a matter of faith, you will said that he is and i will said that he isn´t, i thinks that this part is pretty closed.

About Pre-marital sex i was pretty clear, there is nothing written that approves or disapproves sex before marriage.

Hope that made mayself clear.
 

Wedge009

Rogue Leader
Originally posted by Preacher
IF they can somehow manage to keep their hands (& other popular body parts) away from one another, that'd obviously be OK.

BUT, let's be real: If a couple's already romatically involved w/ one another, what're the odds of that occurring?... Mebbe your friend has managed to do that so far, but it could change overnight (no pun intended)...
Obviously I'm not privy to what goes on, but I'm sure she has the 'balls' (so to speak :)) to stop him from doing anything she doesn't want him to. They're mature people, I'm sure she knows what she's doing.

Originally posted by Preacher
The misguided Christians who did these things [Crusades, etc] (many of whom, no doubt, were in fact hypocrites, and thus not "real" Christians at all)
Some were in it for purely political and/or selfish reasons, but I'm sure they were lots of (truly misguided) Christians who were caught up in the movement without properly thinking about it. Also, I think in those days education of the common people wasn't all that great, so they probably just did what they were ordered to. Of course, the educated rich made their share of mistakes/wrongdoings too.

I think the whole Crusade thing was silly anyway, because there shouldn't have been any significance to the "Holy Land" for Christians other than perhaps historical curiosity.

Originally posted by Preacher
..."leap out of a sealed tomb in a single bound" 3 days after being killed...
To be clear, it was on the third day, really. ;) But whether after two or three days, he was most certainly dead when they put him in the tomb.

Originally posted by Preacher
Even today, in many Jewish or Muslim families, when a person comes to faith in Christ, their families will disown them, reckon them as dead, and even (esp, in extremist Muslim areas) try to actually kill them as a result.
Not just Jewish or Muslim families, plenty of religions and cults will cast out a family member for turning to Christ. Like the mislabelled "Christian" cult, the Exclusive Brethren. :shiver:

Originally posted by Ghost
-Christians don´t circuncidate (for a ritual reason), they choosed that to atract more followers easily.
Do you mean circumcision? What's more important, circumcision of the body, or 'circumcision' of the spirit? In Galatians Paul states "in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value." And in 1 Corinthians, "Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God's commandments is what counts." It is not a matter of "attracting followers" as you say.

Originally posted by Ghost
-You have Saints (well this isn´t for the early church, but it is against the jewish law, and if you want to be more technical against the 2nd Commandement,many persons pray to the saints instead of God, there are staues of them, like idols, and people pray to them )
Yes, I also disagree with praying to saints. The only saints I believe Anglicans recognise are special people in the New Testament, and sainthood is only used as a label.

Originally posted by Ghost
-Christians don´t circuncidate (for a ritual reason), they choosed that to atract more followers easily.
Do you mean circumcision? What's more important, circumcision of the body, or 'circumcision' of the spirit? In Galatians Paul states "in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value." And in 1 Corinthians, "Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God's commandments is what counts." It is not a matter of "attracting followers" as you say.

Originally posted by Ghost
-Shabatth, it isn´t that christians don´t observe it (well i bet that christians don´t observe it as is written in the Torah and some books written pre-Jesus), just they changed the 7th day, Shabatth for the first one, Rishon (in hebrew,sunday in english) this, again, to differenciate themselves from the jews
I don't think that was the intention. Really, no particular day should be of any specific interest to God - indeed, every day should be lived as a 'holy' day. But I believe Sunday was chosen as a special day to commemorate Jesus' resurrection on the third day after Friday.

Originally posted by Ghost
-Food, jews aren´t allowed to eat fishes withoout scales, and animals with the hoof divided in two, Christians doesn´t have restrictions with this.
Because Jesus declared that nothing which enters the body can make someone 'unclean', rather it is what comes out of someone which makes them unclean - foul language, slander, gossip, etc. Also, it again comes down to what people are doing. Does one worship the law, or the God who made the law?

Originally posted by Ghost
And there are more examples that i can´t remember, that is what i meant with ''they accepted/choosed what they wanted''
You still think that is the case? I do not believe so.

Originally posted by Ghost
About the Messiah, as i wrote in many posts, Jesus isn´t the messiah,i said why isn´t the messiah, but at the end it´s a matter of faith, you will said that he is and i will said that he isn´t, i thinks that this part is pretty closed.
What can be more proof of Jesus' status as the Messiah than his resurrection, recorded in history in both the Bible and non-Biblical historical texts?
 

Wedge009

Rogue Leader
[edit] Weekend will probably mean I won't have a chance to reply for a while. Try not to kill this thread, please. ;)
 

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
Originally posted by Wedge009
What can be more proof of Jesus' status as the Messiah than his resurrection, recorded in history in both the Bible and non-Biblical historical texts?
I really don't want to get into this, but I would like to point out that, given the fact that there's barely even sufficient historical evidence to conclude that Jesus actually existed, impartial sources describing his resurrection are virtually an impossibility. You won't find his resurrection outside of Christian records - and in Christian records, it's a matter of faith :).
 

Preacher

Swabbie
Banned
Originally posted by Ghost

I didn´t say that christians changed the Torah.
What i said is that the early Christians to differenciate themselves from the Jews choosed some precepts/laws to accept and others to don´t...A quck examples to make myself clear:

-Christians don´t circuncidate (for a ritual reason), they choosed that to atract more followers easily.
-You have Saints (well this isn´t for the early church, but it is against the jewish law, and if you want to be more technical against the 2nd Commandement,many persons pray to the saints instead of God, there are staues of them, like idols, and people pray to them )
-Shabatth, it isn´t that christians don´t observe it (well i bet that christians don´t observe it as is written in the Torah and some books written pre-Jesus), just they changed the 7th day, Shabatth for the first one, Rishon (in hebrew,sunday in english) this, again, to differenciate themselves from the jews
-Food, jews aren´t allowed to eat fishes withoout scales, and animals with the hoof divided in two, Christians doesn´t have restrictions with this
--- The choice not to circumcise had nothing to do with attracting more followers. They merely stressed that circ's weren't to be *mandatory*, as they are for Jews. It had to do with not wanting to send the message to would-be converts that they have to convert to Judaism FIRST, then become Christians. Heck, there were plenty of (already circ'd, of course) Jews who did become followers. The church was based on the "new covenant", and the view was that the old covenant had been superceded by the new. As such, it made no logical sense to impose an "old covenant" practice on those who would be followers of this "new" way.
--- As for shabbat, someone else who posted on this mentioned that it was changed to Sunday to reflect & honor the fact that the Savior was resurrected on Sunday. This is indeed the reason, and was not therefore done to "diferentiate" themselves from Jews: If He had risen on a Saturday, then we would still have the same Sabbath days as y'all Jews. (Speaking of which, the "3" days thing is based on the fact that, in ancient Judaism, *part* of a day was reckoned to be an entire day, so by that system of timekeeping, the Resurrection DID happen on the 3rd day).
--- As to the Jewish dietary laws, they were abandoned for the same reason as circumcision (see above): Why impose an old covenant practice on followers of the new?... It all has to do with the fact that we Christians are now under the "law of Christ", not bound by the laws of Moses & the Pharisaic Judaism of that day.

... that is what i meant with ''they accepted/choosed what they wanted''
Christians, choosed not to go with the Torah to the letter (but go with the NT ) just with the 10 commandements and some other things, that as a quantity is very low of the total number of laws and precepts. only the parts that they found convenient/apropiate/other reason to accept... About the Messiah, as i wrote in many posts, Jesus isn´t the messiah,i said why isn´t the messiah, but at the end it´s a matter of faith,
Again, it's not a matter of choosing "what they wanted" so much as it is how much of the "old" system was consistent with this new way. Dietary laws & circumcision were not consistent with it, so they were abandoned. As to His Messiahship, you are certainly right in saying that it's a matter of faith--at least until He comes back & proves it to EVERYONE's satisfaction, and beyond doubt.

-You have Saints (well this isn´t for the early church, but it is against the jewish law, and if you want to be more technical against the 2nd Commandement,many persons pray to the saints instead of God, there are staues of them, like idols, and people pray to them )
Agreed; it's gotten quite a bit out of hand. For the record, though, it is primarily the RCC that venerates saints in this way, not the Protestant/Evangelical churches. The epistles speak of ALL the Redeemed believers as saints, not singling any few out for special recognition, and certainly not praying to them to intervene with God on their behalf.
Originally posted by Wedge009

Obviously I'm not privy to what goes on, but I'm sure she has the 'balls' (so to speak) to stop him from doing anything she doesn't want him to. They're mature people, I'm sure she knows what she's doing...
...I think the whole Crusade thing was silly anyway, because there shouldn't have been any significance to the "Holy Land" for Christians other than perhaps historical curiosity.
--- May be, but it's still a dangerous situation for them to be in, if they're at all intent on staying sexually pure. If they're not, well, I guess anything goes.
--- I agree on the Crusades thing. Not one of the Church's finest hours, so to speak.
Originally posted by Quarto

... I would like to point out that, given the fact that there's barely even sufficient historical evidence to conclude that Jesus actually existed, impartial sources describing his resurrection are virtually an impossibility. You won't find his resurrection outside of Christian records - and in Christian records, it's a matter of faith .
Um, not even...

Fact is, there is more evidence that Jesus existed than there is that Caesar or most (maybe even ALL) other famous people of antiquity ever existed. The NT is all *about* Jesus (whether gospels or epistles); did you know that there are more original NT manuscripts floating around today than there are of virtually any other historical text or other ancient writings (i.e., the Iliad)?...
Thus, if you're basing your claim that he maybe didn't even exist on a dearth of evidence, then you are sadly mistaken, mi amigo; you would be on more solid footing to say that Homer or Julius Caesar never existed than to claim such about Christ.

As to the Resurrection, I admit that's a little more problematic than His existence, in that most who wrote about JC were indeed His followers, and thus theoretically were "biased" in that direction. Plus there is no objective physical evidence that it happened.

I would ask readers of this post to consider, however, that not all that we accept as "proven" to be true is based on objective, scientifically reproducible physical evidence. This is especially true when it comes to events of antiquity. Considering that, there is abundant *empirical* evidence that the Resurrection happened. Fact one: No one ever produced a body that was claimed to be Christ's despite tons of reasons why it would be a good idea for someone to have at least *tried* to do so (starting with the Romans & Jews). Fact two: Numerous (intra- and extra- biblical) sources report that eitherJesus was seen again around Judea for the couple of months or so after His death, or at least that He was claimed to've been seen. Fact three: You can't discount a source as unreliable simply becuase they MIGHT have had a leaning towards the subject they were reporting on. Esp. considering the sheer volume of sources (and how many manuscripts are still in existence today), the weight of the testimonial/documentary evidence is indeed formidable.
 

Delance

Victory, you say?
Originally posted by Quarto
I really don't want to get into this, but I would like to point out that, given the fact that there's barely even sufficient historical evidence to conclude that Jesus actually existed
There's abundant historical evidence that Jesus existed. I don't know anyone who seriously claims he didn't on an academic level.

impartial sources describing his resurrection are virtually an impossibility.
What sources? How do they indicate that?

You are talking about historical records here, or medical science? Because of course it would be an impossible thing for the medical science - it was a miracle.

You won't find his resurrection outside of Christian records - and in Christian records, it's a matter of faith :).
Of course it's a matter of Faith. And it’s not something easy to believe into - even one of the apostles was there in front of Him initially had doubts the resurrection.

But as Sait Paul said, this is essential to the Christian Faith.
 

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
Originally posted by Preacher
Fact is, there is more evidence that Jesus existed than there is that Caesar or most (maybe even ALL) other famous people of antiquity ever existed. The NT is all *about* Jesus (whether gospels or epistles); did you know that there are more original NT manuscripts floating around today than there are of virtually any other historical text or other ancient writings (i.e., the Iliad)?...
Thus, if you're basing your claim that he maybe didn't even exist on a dearth of evidence, then you are sadly mistaken, mi amigo; you would be on more solid footing to say that Homer or Julius Caesar never existed than to claim such about Christ.
You are confusing quantity with quality. You could have a billion NT manuscripts, and it wouldn't matter - they're all the same source. Furthermore, they are a religious source. That's not to say they cannot be accurate - but they must be proven so. Many events mentioned in the OT have been archaeologically proven to have happened (though not necessarily the way the OT describes them), but as fas as Jesus in the NT is concerned, the closest to archaeological proof has been that ossuary they found last year, which may or may not have belonged to Jesus' brother (and, given that Jesus' brother isn't even mentioned in the NT, it's quite possible this is a different Jesus altogether).

What about other historical sources? There are, IIRC, one or two Roman historical texts that make vague references to Jesus (and thus, there is some just barely-sufficient evidence to prove his existence - which is what I had said before, not that his existence actually couldn't be proven). Several other texts which would probably have talked more about the events in question are known to have existed. But no copies have survived, and therefore these texts cannot prove anything.

As for your points about the resurrection... nobody found the body because nobody was really that concerned about it (regardless of what the NT might say). You must remember, you're looking at this through the prism of a Christian. You're brought up to believe that Jesus was always important. But this wasn't the case. That's why the Romans couldn't care less about him and only took care of him after the locals got upset.
There were Jesus sightings for the couple of months after he died? There have also been Elvis sightings for years.

I'm not trying to claim that what you believe in is not true, by the way. What I am trying to say is that it is a matter of faith, because convincing proof doesn't exist. You believe he was resurrected, and that's fine. You wouldn't be a Christian if you didn't believe it, after all. But my point (in response to what Wedge said about Jesus' resurrection being the ultimate proof) is that Jesus' resurrection is not going to convince anybody that's not a Christian.
 

Preacher

Swabbie
Banned
Originally posted by Farlander

Furthermore, the structure of the whole narative does not allow for the downplaying of Peter. You can't read these things in vacuum, you know.
Depends what you mean by downplaying Peter. As you yourself admitted, he was a fallible, and therefore sinful man, like the rest of us. That ain't downlaying, it's being real. All I'm saying is, the RCC don't have a solid enough reason to've institute the Papacy based on a single passage, one whose meaning is far less clear than the RCC thinks.

...But that does not mean that indulgences themselves are somehow a wrong thing...you can certainly obtain an indugence today, and many people do. It is a very holy and beneficial practice. There is no sort of payment involved.
To clarify the definition. An indulgence...is about a remission of the temporal punishment for sins already forgiven...
Oh, OK, so, it's more or less a way of saying

"Oh, pretty please don't whup me for what I done, Dad!?..."?...

Holy? Beneficial? Very good? How?.... Plz explain how being able to weasel out of punishment for your sins (not to mention that you've been forgiven) is beneficial.... Any parent knows better than that. Just a wild guess here, but I'm guessing there's no biblical basis for this. Forgiveness is one thing, but for God to abort bringing consequences upon the sinner for what they've done SIMPLY because of some silly ritual or policy compels him to is laughable, not to mention violating His justice. If such greats as Moses, David & Peter didn't avert punishent for their sins (though God gladly & quickly *forgave* them), what gives us any right to think we can avoid God's justice?...

I'm not sure I understand. The Catholic Church is the Catholic Church. Excluding the Eastern Rites in your posts makes no sense...
It makes plenty of sense, bub. Listen up, and understand this: I am addressing solely the RCC, not the others you cite. I exclude those because RCC is the faith I was reared in, and is the single largest Christian denomination there is (some ~1,000,000 in size last I heard). The other ones you cite are of course way smaller in size, and since I wasn't raised Orthodox/etc. I cannot comment on their views & reasons for same as well as I can with the RCC.

Besides, there is nothing stopping any man who has been married, but whose wife has died from becoming a priest. Lots of men do that these days. And the Pope does not set all Catholic "policy". A lot of that is in the hands of the local bishops...
"Lots of them do these days" is a moot point, in that these policies/doctrinal views were formulated LONG before "these days" came about. The bishop deal is informative, but when it comes to the church's official views on sexual matters, it most definitely *is* the Pope who sets the pace on that one.

Right, the Pope cannot alter teachings on faith and morality. He CAN explain them further and see them in new ways, but he cannot teach contrary to them. Note that there is no earthly "check" for this. If it ever happened, we would simply be forced to conclude the whole Catholic Church is full of it and always has been.
Indeed.

Many already have concluded that, what with bishops shuttling pervert priests around under a massive shell game instead of bringing them to justice, the Vatican considering elevating Mary to the post of "Co-Redemptrix of Humanity" (that's rich!...), etc., etc.... As for me, I don't think they've "always" been full of it, but things're sure getting pretty wacky. I'm all for the changes since Vatican II, but now things are swinging way too far the other way.
Originally posted by Quarto

...But my point (in response to what Wedge said about Jesus' resurrection being the ultimate proof) is that Jesus' resurrection is not going to convince anybody that's not a Christian.
I understand what you're saying here, but you must understand that that particular statement, as you phrased it anyway, is wrong:
In the last 2,000 yrs or so, there've been countless millions (by now mebbe even billions) who BECAME convinced of the resurrection who were initially Jews or pagan Romans (or even athiests). These initially believed that the whole resurrection thing was just a big hoax or other type of lie. Case in point, Saul of Tarsus ( = the apostle Paul).

I'll hafta end here & pick this up later today, as I gotta leave in a few minutes, but I do have some other responses to your post.
Originally posted by Delance

Of course it's a matter of Faith. And it's not something easy to believe into - even one of the apostles was there in front of Him initially had doubts the resurrection.
If you're talking about Thomas, you're not quite right: Thomas didn't believe UNTIL he was "right there in front of" the risen Savior...
 

Preacher

Swabbie
Banned
Originally posted by Quarto
...You are confusing quantity with quality. You could have a billion NT manuscripts...they're all the same source. Furthermore, they are a religious source. That's not to say they cannot be accurate - but they must be proven so.
...but as fas as Jesus in the NT is concerned, the closest to archaeological proof has been that ossuary they found last year, which may or may not have belonged to Jesus' brother (and, given that Jesus' brother isn't even mentioned in the NT...
...What about other historical sources? There are, IIRC, one or two Roman historical texts that make vague references to Jesus (and thus, there is some just barely-sufficient evidence to prove his existence - which is what I had said before, not that his existence actually couldn't be proven)
....Several other texts which would probably have talked more about the events in question are known to have existed. But no copies have survived, and therefore these texts cannot prove anything.
...nobody found the body because nobody was really that concerned about it...
...You must remember, you're looking at this through the prism of a Christian.
...There have also been Elvis sightings for years.
...What I am trying to say is that it is a matter of faith, because convincing proof doesn't exist. .
As I'd indicated earlier, you are sadly mistaken on all these points. To whit:

(1) They are most definitely *not* the "same source", as you maintain: We have 4 different gospel writers, Paul, James, Peter, Jude, and a couple other writers whose identities are currently not known for sure (That's about 10 altogether). Nor are our sources all religious ones (see below);
(2) As to archaelogical proof, I'd make the point that ancient writings (Dead Sea Scrolls, for example) are a form of archaelogical proof. Also, as I'd said, a great deal of the "proof" we have for other figures of antiquity consists primarily or even entirely of writings alone, with no bones/etc. to provide something more "substantial". Yet we believe that Caesar & Homer existed; to then say Christ *didn't* just because you don't have a set of bones is flat out willful ignorance.
(3) I don't know where you get your idea that James isn't mentioned in the NT; Fact is, he WROTE part of it (the book of James, not surprisingly). I speak here of James the brother of Jesus, not either of the apostles by that name (This James didn't believe his own brother was Messiah until some time after His death, but then went on to become a martyr for his faith). See also Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3, Galatians 1:19, & Jude 1:1; possibly also Acts 12:17 & Acts 21:18
(4) The NT writings make quite clear that the Jews, at least, were vehemently concerned that this Jesus' body not be stolen by his followers (and understandably so), lest His followers then be able to claim that He "rose from the dead" (see Matthew 27: 63-66)
(5) The Court of Common Sense: Makes no difference what "prism" I'm looking at the issue through; His existence is a fact. If you want to dispute His Resurrection or Messiahship, go ahead, but pick up any Encyclopedia. Most will have articles ranging upwards of 20,000 words devoted to this man. Do you really think they'd waste that much time & ink on someone who they weren't even sure *existed*?... If he never really existed, he would be no more than a footnote in the pages of human history. Instead, he is the Governor of human history (the whole B.C./A.D. thing...). No less than the ancient Jewish Rabbi Gamaliel - who was Paul's teacher in Pharisaism - warned His fellow Pharisees: "Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men..." (Acts 5:34-39). Indeed, the map of history these last 2,000 yrs or so has shown his words to be stunningly true.
As to Elvis, I'm a lot more inclined to believe well-respected historical sources (see below) than some hick from Podunk, AR who can't read, had a bad burrito last nite, and is intent on getting his/her 15 minutes of fame (after he/she finishes that jug of moonshine, of course :p )

(6) Historical (non-biblical/non-Christian) sources documenting Christ's existence:
===============================
-CORNELIUS TACITUS (2nd century Roman historian) - Cited Pilate's execution of Christ while outlining Nero's infamous persecutions of Christians.
-LUCIAN (2nd century Roman satirist) - Was scornful of this "new religion", but also cited Christ's execution.
-JOSEPHUS (famous 1st century Jewish historian) - To this day one of the best sources for non-religious documentation of the Jewish people & their (non-religious) history up to his time. Mentions Christ repeatedly in his writings about Palestine at that time. In fact, He seems quite fascinated by the man & His power (though there's no indication that He ever became a Christian himself)
-SEUTONIUS (2nd century Roman historian) - Cited Christ as a source of uprisings/public disturbances that happened in Palestine as a result of His teachings & "instigations"
-THALLUS (Jewish/Samaritan) - Here is one of the "second hand" sources you may be referring to. He wrote in 52 AD; his original texts are lost to us, but passages of his writings were cited/preserved for us by other writers. Julius Africanus states how Thallus mentions Christ's death when trying to explain the "darkness that fell over the land" after JC's death as an eclipse.
-MARA BAR SEPION (1st century) - While explaining to his son in a letter that those who persecute wise men incur misfortune upon themselves, cites the deaths of Socrates, Pythagoras, and Christ as examples.
-The Jewish Talmudists themselves mentioned Jesus in a number of places. And as we all, know, Jews believe that He existed (and some even honor Him as being a great teacher); the sticking point is that they do not think Him to be Messiah.

That's enuff convincing proof of his existence for me and a few billion other people on this planet. If it somehow still doesn't satisfy you, well, I guess nothing will. :rolleyes:
 

Ghost

Emperor
I saw that program in Discovery Channel about the presumed tomb of Jesus´s brother.

I think that the thing that was written was (IIRC):

Here lies Santiago son of Joseph, Jesus´s brother (of course this in ancient hebrew)

But the words Jesus and bother seemed to be of a differernt caligraphy and some different pattern in the stone remainder.
 

Farlander

Rear Admiral
Originally posted by Preacher
Depends what you mean by downplaying Peter. As you yourself admitted, he was a fallible, and therefore sinful man, like the rest of us. That ain't downlaying, it's being real. All I'm saying is, the RCC don't have a solid enough reason to've institute the Papacy based on a single passage, one whose meaning is far less clear than the RCC thinks.
Yes, but you see, we didn't sit down one day and say, "I've got it! We'll make this thing called a 'pope!'" Peter just was the pope from the very beginning. He certainly believed he had that authority, and certainly believed that he had the authority to pass it on, which he did, to St. Linus. That's just the way it was.

Oh, OK, so, it's more or less a way of saying

"Oh, pretty please don't whup me for what I done, Dad!?..."?...

Holy? Beneficial? Very good? How?.... Plz explain how being able to weasel out of punishment for your sins (not to mention that you've been forgiven) is beneficial.... Any parent knows better than that. Just a wild guess here, but I'm guessing there's no biblical basis for this. Forgiveness is one thing, but for God to abort bringing consequences upon the sinner for what they've done SIMPLY because of some silly ritual or policy compels him to is laughable, not to mention violating His justice. If such greats as Moses, David & Peter didn't avert punishent for their sins (though God gladly & quickly *forgave* them), what gives us any right to think we can avoid God's justice?...
No. Rather than go through all this, I will simply refer you to this article:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm

It is very informative, and I'm sure does a better job of explaining it than I could anyway.

It makes plenty of sense, bub. Listen up, and understand this: I am addressing solely the RCC, not the others you cite. I exclude those because RCC is the faith I was reared in, and is the single largest Christian denomination there is (some ~1,000,000 in size last I heard). The other ones you cite are of course way smaller in size, and since I wasn't raised Orthodox/etc. I cannot comment on their views & reasons for same as well as I can with the RCC.
I don't even know what you are talking about anymore. The Catholic Church is the Catholic Church. The Latin Rite is inseperable from the other Catholic Rites. They believe the exact same thing. They are under the same earthly authority. The Orthodox are an interesting case, though. They retain valid holy orders, and so, sacraments, but are very distinct from the Catholic Church (not in beliefs, but as an entity).

"Lots of them do these days" is a moot point, in that these policies/doctrinal views were formulated LONG before "these days" came about. The bishop deal is informative, but when it comes to the church's official views on sexual matters, it most definitely *is* the Pope who sets the pace on that one.
The pope, acting as Patriarch of the West, makes rules for the West (NOT the entire Catholic Church) regarding priestly celebacy. He feels that at this time, it is the most beneficial for the West for priests to remain unmarried. There is no theological reason why priests should be unmarried - i.e., this is not a case of faith or morals, it is a matter of what is most practical. So, if the pope decided tomorrow that the situation changed and it would be best for married men to be ordained in the Latin Rite, he could change it with no problems. It seems you are making this out to be more than it is. It's just something he feels is best for the West, at this point in time. That's all there is to it.

Many already have concluded that, what with bishops shuttling pervert priests around under a massive shell game instead of bringing them to justice, the Vatican considering elevating Mary to the post of "Co-Redemptrix of Humanity" (that's rich!...), etc., etc.... As for me, I don't think they've "always" been full of it, but things're sure getting pretty wacky. I'm all for the changes since Vatican II, but now things are swinging way too far the other way.
These issues and "changes" of Vatican II do not and have not, ever, changed any teachings on faith or morals. That is the only real issue. Vatican II is the probably one of the most misunderstood things in the world, and has been improperly used to justify all sorts of abuses by both clergy and laity.
 

Preacher

Swabbie
Banned
Originally posted by Farlander

Yes, but you see, we didn't sit down one day and say, "I've got it! We'll make this thing called a 'pope!'" Peter just was the pope from the very beginning. He certainly believed he had that authority, and certainly believed that he had the authority to pass it on, which he did, to St. Linus. That's just the way it was.
Really?... Prove it...
Show us where in the Scripture it says that Peter "certainly believed he had that authority"... Furthermore, I know of no reference to a "St. Linus", either. Show us that one...
"That's just the way it was" is a cop-out unless you can back it up with Scripture...

No. Rather than go through all this, I will simply refer you to this article:
Hoooo, boy!...

This article you refer to raises far more doubt & skepticism than it purports to answer. Indulgences good only in certain places, some only good when attached to some "holy" object (crucifix, rosary, medal), the obtaining of an indulgence for someone who's already dead (Don't Mormons basically do something quite similar?... I guess if you buy into the Purgatory thing, it makes some sense, but that's shaky enough as it is), the whole "penance" thing, Baptism as a supposed way to obtain forgiveness for sin, the notion of "Purgatory", etc... I find little or no Scriptural basis for these things I just cited. I should be curious to know how they justify them, or is that also "just the way it is" too?...

I don't even know what you are talking about anymore. The Catholic Church is the Catholic Church. The Latin Rite is inseperable from the other Catholic Rites...
It's really quite plain if you simply read my post. The "other" Catholic churches may be quite similar to the RCC/etc., but they are not the same. Were they the same, they wouldn't be named by other names, comprendes?... If they were the same, then I would be able to go to church at a different "type" of Catholic church each week, and find the psalms, readings, homily, liturgy, etc. were all JUST like I remember them as a boy & young teen at RCC. Somehow, I don't think that's the case; are you saying that they all WOULD be the same?... If not, then stand down and quit beating a dead horse. I address the RCC because it's the one I know from having been raised that way. The "others" don't apply because their ways of doing things/procedures/policies/etc. are varying degrees different than the RCC that I remember.

The pope, acting as Patriarch of the West, makes rules for the West ...That's all there is to it.
Right, just like I said.

These issues and "changes" of Vatican II do not and have not, ever, changed any teachings on faith or morals.
Be that as it may, but Vatican II was not my point. My point was that the RCC has been getting further & further away from Scripture & from their original mission over the last several decades, and instances like the ones I cited are evidence of same. There are those who say that the RCC is the "false church" that will ally itself with AntiChrist in the last days. I can't say I necessarily believe that, but these kinds of things certainly have me scratching my head as to whether such folks may indeed be on to something there. Ultimately only time will tell, but still...
::shudders::
 

Wedge009

Rogue Leader
Originally posted by Ghost
About Pre-marital sex i was pretty clear, there is nothing written that approves or disapproves sex before marriage.
Don't know if this is enough for you, but Deuteronomy 22 clearly shows a woman who is found not to be a virgin is to be condemned.

Originally posted by Quarto
...given the fact that there's barely even sufficient historical evidence to conclude that Jesus actually existed...
Barely sufficient? You dispute the likes of Tacitus, Josephus, or Pliny? Not that they exactly spoke of Jesus in a positive manner, but they did speak of him.

Originally posted by Quarto
You are confusing quantity with quality. You could have a billion NT manuscripts, and it wouldn't matter - they're all the same source.
I think the point here is that what we have as the New Testament is very close to the original pieces of writings. Since we have so many samples to work with, there is very little textual variance. As opposed to the few copies of writings on Plato, Caesar, Homer's Illiad, etc, which could be completely different to the original writings and we would never know it.

Originally posted by Quarto
As for your points about the resurrection... nobody found the body because nobody was really that concerned about it (regardless of what the NT might say).
Really? If the Jews and Romans were all in a huff to shut down the Christian movement, all they had to do was look inside the cave where he was buried. As for the story that the disciples took it - would they really all be prepared to die for a lie if they knew where Jesus' body really was?

Originally posted by Quarto
There were Jesus sightings for the couple of months after he died? There have also been Elvis sightings for years.
All one would have to do is go to Elvis' grave.

Originally posted by Quarto
I'm not trying to claim that what you believe in is not true, by the way. What I am trying to say is that it is a matter of faith, because convincing proof doesn't exist.
But there are significant pieces of circumstantial evidence, at the very least.

Originally posted by Quarto
You wouldn't be a Christian if you didn't believe [the resurrection], after all.
Alas, there are some Jews who have realised that the resurrection is the only explanation for the events almost 2000 years ago, yet they still refuse to believe he is God.

Originally posted by Preacher
Do you really think they'd waste that much time & ink on someone who they weren't even sure *existed*?... If he never really existed, he would be no more than a footnote in the pages of human history.
Indeed. Jesus is everywhere, whether he be mentioned in a good or bad way. In music, in monuments, in Easter/Christmas celebrations, in misguided people's exclamations of frustration, etc.

Originally posted by Farlander
Yes, but you see, we didn't sit down one day and say, "I've got it! We'll make this thing called a 'pope!'" Peter just was the pope from the very beginning.
We had an interesting talk at one Sunday service regarding Mary, the mother of Jesus. The conclusion was that while we shouldn't worship and pray to her as God, since she was sinful just like we are, she was also special, chosen by God to give birth to the Saviour. In the same way, Protestants are right in not revering the Pope, but we should still accept and respect him as a leader.

Pity this whole debate is only an intellectual discussion. You can believe all these things in your head, but if it doesn't change the person you are, then it's all meaningless...
 

Wedge009

Rogue Leader
Originally posted by Preacher
Julius Africanus states how Thallus mentions Christ's death when trying to explain the "darkness that fell over the land" after JC's death as an eclipse.
Even this cannot be an explanation since the Passover was the next day, and apparently the Passover Feasts were held around the time of a full moon.
 

Ghost

Emperor
Originally posted by Wedge009
Don't know if this is enough for you, but Deuteronomy 22 clearly shows a woman who is found not to be a virgin is to be condemned.
What versicule?

Originally posted by Wedge009

Alas, there are some Jews who have realised that the resurrection is the only explanation for the events almost 2000 years ago, yet they still refuse to believe he is God.
The resurrection is the only explanation ofd what events?
 

Preacher

Swabbie
Banned
Well said, Wedge; all of it.

I didn't know about the Jews who believe the historicity of the Resurrection, yet deny His Messiahship, though... Fascinating...
Originally posted by Ghost
What versicule?
Deuteronomy 22:13-21, esp. 20-21.

The resurrection is the only explanation of what events?
All of it. The fact that a body was never found, the post-execution sightings of Him in Judea for the next 40 days or so, the transformation of the apostles from frightened wimps into bold witnesses willing to die for their Lord (10 of the 12 dies martyr's deaths, Judas - the 11th - having killed himself), the fact that they were able to "turn the world upside down with their teaching", the aforementioned predominance of the name of Jesus in human history ever since, all the prophecies that were fulfilled in Him thus far, the conversion of Saul from a hateful Pharisee & greatest enemy of the early church into it's greatest missionary ever, all of the book of Acts, etc. etc. etc.,...
 

Ghost

Emperor
Deuteronomy 22:20: i can´t find nothing about the virgin or the word ''virgin''
22:21, the word ''betulim'' isn´t ''virgin/s'' nor the verb ''nabla'' is ''lose the virginity'', still i will check in the other Torah.

Deuteronomy 22:22 a man and a woman found in a tent, and they were punished with the death

I will search tomorrow in a spanish-hebrew Torah, to see what can i find.

And empty tomb, could be a stolen body.
Angry Pharisees, well all the situation with Jesus was very complicated.
I can´t find how can this be related with the resurrection.

The conversion of the Apostles, this is obvious, if they believed in Jesus and they say that they saw him, the conversion isn´t uncommon
 
Top