Why can't we Christians just accept each other's faiths............. (believing, rejecting)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Supine, I believe love should be defined as those which emulate the actions of Jesus when He walked on this earth. And, incidentally that love included His action of taking on the money-changers in the religious institutions of His time. Something that needs to be done even today, and which is very difficult in most denominations and perhaps impossible within the RCC!!!
The strength of the RCC, its traditions, I think sometimes become its weakness. (Isn't that true of us as individuals as well?).
The early, "mean" old church is a good description. Weren't there a couple of followers of Peter (Aninias? for one) who were struck dead because they didn't purely accept the early church's attempt at communism?
And I'm not stating that as criticism because I believe we would all be better off the closer we could live our lives as the early Christians did. My question is whether we should follow a tradition of the Church because it is a tradition, or rather follow those traditions that most are most closely aligned with Christ's life.
I am not certain that I can wholly accept Catholic doctrine (or any other denomination's doctrine for that matter), but I am finding some of my most important beliefs about faith and works lining up with long-time Catholic thought.
Last edited by Wardendresden; 09-11-2013 at 04:36 PM..
Reason: Spelling
It is a major part of the story of the crucifixion. Remember now we're talking about those of you the Bible literally that this applies to.
The story was put down in words many years later from a story that was passed orally. The sort of detail you seek is unrealistic. The only people that demand absolute accuracy are Bible Fundamentalists and Atheists.
Quote:
And you're absolutely wrong that there is not a record. Every earthquake imprints a geological record. Depending on which level the earthquake occurs displacement of varves will date when that happened.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,926,708 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658
The story was put down in words many years later from a story that was passed orally. The sort of detail you seek is unrealistic. The only people that demand absolute accuracy are Bible Fundamentalists and Atheists.
At best an estimate.
The problem is that whenever you get into religion debate someone is bound to call chapter and verse and tell you it's the truth because it in the Bible.
So how are we atheists to know if you're a fundamentalist or not?
It appears that many Christians just like to choose which part of the Bible they have to believe in As soon as they get called on a verse there is all sorts of spinning trying to explain what is meant.
It's that moving target syndrome. In addition some preachers will never answer your question. Credibility starts to wonder doesn't it
The rules of the forum only allow you to post a few sentences.
Quote:
An early first-century earthquake in the Dead Sea
by Jefferson Williams
This article examines a report in the 27th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew in the New Testament that an earthquake was felt in Jerusalem on the day of the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth. We have tabulated a varved chronology from a core from Ein Gedi on the western shore of the Dead Sea between deformed sediments due to a widespread earthquake in 31 BC and deformed sediments due to an early first-century earthquake. The early first-century seismic event has been tentatively assigned a date of 31 AD with an accuracy of ±5 years. Plausible candidates include the earthquake reported in the Gospel of Matthew, an earthquake that occurred sometime before or after the crucifixion and was in effect ‘borrowed’ by the author of the Gospel of Matthew, and a local earthquake between 26 and 36 AD that was sufficiently energetic to deform the sediments at Ein Gedi but not energetic enough to produce a still extant and extra-biblical historical record. If the last possibility is true, this would mean that the report of an earthquake in the Gospel of Matthew is a type of allegory.
You see, the study was debunked, and even the author suggested that the event was borrowed and put into Matthew.
Notice the operative word if.
You are twisting what it said. The study was not debunked.
Williams and his team acknowledged that based on the data alone, the earthquake associated with the crucifixion could have occurred sometime before or after the crucifixion. They were merely leaving open the possibility that the earthquake could have occurred a few years before or after the time of the crucifixion. All three excerpts I provided give a 10 year window of time in which the earthquake could have occurred. The point is that geological evidence shows that there was a quake in the time period in which the crucifixion occurred.
Last edited by Michael Way; 09-12-2013 at 07:26 PM..
The problem is that whenever you get into religion debate someone is bound to call chapter and verse and tell you it's the truth because it in the Bible.
So how are we atheists to know if you're a fundamentalist or not?
It appears that many Christians just like to choose which part of the Bible they have to believe in As soon as they get called on a verse there is all sorts of spinning trying to explain what is meant.
It's that moving target syndrome. In addition some preachers will never answer your question. Credibility starts to wonder doesn't it
I believe the Bible is allegoric and I don't subscribe to the Bible as the entire word of God. I don't like to use the Bible to justify or attack a point because both sides on an issue are often supported. Furthermore, the Bible was written in biblical times when costumes were different. Lastly the NT was put together 300 plus years later.
Guess we're just here to be sent to test your faith.
Why can't we Christians just accept each other's faiths............. <---- What on earth does earthquakes in the Holy Land in or around 33 AD have to do with this thread????
If you want to argue about earthquakes, start a new thread.
The Catholic answer is a little easier because the Pope in Petrine authority can bind and loose on earth and that will be bound and loosed in heaven. Also, Jesus stated we humans at the time He walked the earth were not yet ready to hear all His teachings, and He insinuated He held back teaching us certain things because of that.
It has always struck me as odd that the Roman See claims to be THE successor to Peter. Peter never lived there, yet he was supposedly bishop of Rome. All he ever did at Rome that we can establish with any degree of certainty is die there. Peter was also supposedly bishop of Antioch too. Was he bishop of both then? Does that make the current unbroken successive line of Bishops at Antioch equal in authority to the Pope? Why wouldn't it?
I really doubt any of the 5 Patriarchs were true successors to Peter or any other apostle. They just claimed it because such a claim substantiated the authority they pretty much gave to themselves. Reality is Alexandria, Antioch, Rome and Constantinople were the four biggest cities in the empire and their importance and preeminence was probably just 100% political. (Obviously, Jerusalem is important because it is Jerusalem. That one at least makes some sense.) I've never understood how Rome manages to claim supreme authority and direct succession from Peter.
How are the Roman bishops any more of a true successor than any other bishop or clergy that was ordained by Peter? You have to make an insane number of assumptions and do all sorts of historical acrobatics in order to establish the bishop of Rome and the one and only successor to Peter.
The story was put down in words many years later from a story that was passed orally. The sort of detail you seek is unrealistic. The only people that demand absolute accuracy are Bible Fundamentalists and Atheists.
That is just not accurate. The issue some atheist have is when certain items are cherry picked as absolute truth and others are said to be just stories or generalizations depending on what fits their views.
Just so you know , I am the only one who is correct.
I agree totally.........or would that make me correct too
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
