|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 9, 2010 13:00:32 GMT
I would not class you with the other atheists we have had on here, hemingway, but your comments about the Bible are pretty superficial. To start with, you treats the talking snake in the Garden of Eden and the ages of the Patriarchs (which are clearly written long after what they purport to describe, and can be read as archetypes rather than literal accounts) as being on the same level as Jesus walking on the water, which is as described by eyewitnesses to the author within a few decades of the event, and which amounts to very little if it is not literally correct. Secondly, it is quite correct that many other Near Eastern societies had mythic narratives resembling those of the Old Testament (though generally lacking in particularity). These can be and have been explained on the grounds that other peoples besides the Israelites retained some awareness of their Creator and participated to some extent in the process of revelation which culminated in Israel and the Incarnation. Third, leaving aside the question of whether some aspects of the Biblical revelations might have immediate material benefits (Moses Maimonides the famous mediaeval Jewish philosopher used to argue that the Mosaic dietary code had clear medical benefits, and it has been argued that the rise of modern science was crucially facilitated by monotheism and could not have occurred in a pantheistic universe) you seem to be making assumptions about their purpose which are pretty much unexamined. Understanding of electricity and DNA depend on a body of knowledge that was not available to the people of Biblical times, and yet we can't assume they were in themselves less gifted than we are; the inventor of the wheel, the first cultivator of grain, may arguably have been greater than Newton or Einstein. CS Lewis argues that Jesus' miracles are accelerations/intensifications of the fundamental processes of life, upholding his claim to be their creator and master; isn't this something more basic than producing a technical manual out of thin air? As Cardinal Baronius so rightly said, and Redmond so wrongly denied, the Scriptures are written to show us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Feb 10, 2010 10:36:42 GMT
I deliberately avoided using the definite article in respect of truth as I am sure my notion of truth and Hemmingway's are quite different. I don't expect atheists or agnostics or believers in anything other than Catholicism to come here seeking enlightenment. They won't find it. If I was hoping for one thing on the forum, it was intra-Catholic debate, but we have not seen a lot of that. Yes - there have been several different traditionalist view points, but no non-traditionalist conservative view point (eg from Opus Dei), no middle-of-the-road Catholic view point and no liberal Catholic view. Ironically, the last guys are the proselytisers among the Catholics - they want to get rid of us traditionalists and conservatives to make the Church more accomodating to people like Hemmingway. They fail in the point that Hemmingway and people who think like him have no wish to be in the Church, simply because they show respect for a basic requirement, even predicate, of Church membership - that is belief in God. (I have to say I have heard stories about atheists among the Church'es clergy - that makes for....interesting psychological evaluation).
No - this is not a missionary site and if we got an, as it were, seeker after 'the' truth, I hope we would direct them to more competant people. As for seekers after truth - I would hold that what both believers and atheists have a concept that there is a truth. Agnostics may be different. So even if there are polar opinions in regard to one aspect of truth, there can be fruitful discussion - and even agreement. The problem I have with some atheist posters here is that they came to the forum to generate heat rather than light - and though we have had differences, I don't count you among them. Unfortunately, they were enormously facilitated by a few of our own nut jobs who seem to be regard this - and other traditional Catholic fora (try Angelqueen, for example) - as a sort of contest as to who can be the whackiest of the billion or so nominal Catholics in the world. These aren't interested in generating light at all - only heat. And I can well understand how atheist.ie would find this as entertainment. I find it tragic.
However, if I can be just as original as Eccles above and state there is a common agreement that the truth is out there and if we can keep to some basic ground rules, there may be some elucidation. I have to say, I joined the forum on the understanding that the discussion would be principally between Catholics. That is not the way it developed - so I would say, throw the board open to other believers as well.
Anyway, I am going to agree with Eccles' paraphrase of Jack Nicholson above, that Catholics can't handle the truth. You could argue that the Catholic, even Christian, position is that no one can handle The Truth (I refer to Christ's definition of Himself as 'the way, the truth and the life' in St John's Gospel; so there was a certain irony in John quoting Pilate as saying 'what is truth' in the passion narrative of the same gospel - this is what Askel refered to). I would say though Hemmingway's questions on scripture, which are good questions but would be more critical on a Protestant board. Sorry to alternate between second and third person, but I am both addressing Hemmingway particularly and everyone else generally at the same time. Anyway Hemmingway uses the word 'evidence' in a way I read 'proof'. I would not see scripture as proof of very much, but I will borrow the word employed in John's Gospel - that it is testimony or witness. Now a juror may take testimony whatever way they want - and there are many permutations as to how both Jews and Christians regard the Bible and I am not going to begin a discussion on that now.
One thing I will raise, and I am not pulling up Eccles on his use of the term 'Roman Catholic' as this is commonplace in the English-speaking world. However, it is a post-reformation term and not one the Church ever used to describe itself. I would regard it as sloppy and misleading - there are more than twenty churches in communion with the Church of Rome which are in no way 'Roman Catholic'. To take one individual who enjoyed a lot of news coverage through the 1990s, Tariq Azis, who is a Chaldaean Catholic or another George Mitchell, who is a least nominally a Maronite Catholic (even if he simply said 'Lebanese Maronite' when brokering the peace deal in the North :-)). The Church however has described itself as Latin Catholic. Now I know I am not going to change a whole culture of usages in one post here, but I would regard Latin Catholic as better usage than Roman Catholic.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 11, 2010 10:50:34 GMT
One further point I would like to make about Hemingway's post. At the heart of his position is what might be called the "argument from incongruity" or from commonsense- namely that the vents described in the Gospels simply cannot have happened, and that any argument adduced in their favour, however strong it appears, must self-evidently be a mere rationalisation. This is, at least in the form Hemingway uses it, a device of rhetoric rather than argumentation, and I will oppose to it something from my own experience. as I have mentioned before, i am a professional historian, and quite often when I am talking to people about modern Irish history and mention some strange or little-known detail I find that the person I am addressing assumes I have made this up as a joke - and yet I know full well that I have not made it up and that I have sources which confirm the truth of what I am saying. (I should mention that I am not referring to supernatural events but to the actions and beliefs of particular individuals and groups.) This does not "prove" that the Gospels are true any more than Hemingwa proves they are false, but it does show that what seems commonsensical to us does not necessarily appear so to people in other times and places (and vice versa) and that his sort of common sense is not necessarily a safe guide. Voltaire thought it self-evidently ridiculous that stones could fall from the sky, dismissed it as a monkish fable, and advised any collectors who possessed meteorites to discard them as worthless.
|
|
eccles
New Member
My Old Horse Chester
Posts: 25
|
Post by eccles on Feb 12, 2010 3:21:51 GMT
I stated that You Roman Catholics can't handle the truth. You replied:
" I might add that eccles' "you Roman Catholcs can't handle the truth" seems to me to reflect a very significant element of atheist sensibility - a belief that it is a sign of strength, courage and clear-sightedness to be a nihilist and that religious faith is the product of cowardice and evasive suburban sentimentality. "
I see that you are more thick that I though you were. You couldn't see the truth and understand it if it hit you hard in the face.
The truth is that Christianity is just like all other religions that believe in some supernatural diety. The truth is that there is no "Creator/God". The Bible is all fiction based on other fictious religions of the time, one example being Egyptology whence came the cock'n'bull stories about Jesus and his alleged 'virgin birth'. The Jesus myth is based on the Horus myth. The mother of Horus was Isis - a "virgin".
The Bible is the worst book of fiction ever written and should be classified Fiction/Horror. You mention "eyewitnesses' of Jesus so-called "miracles" passing down their fables down to the writers of the Gospels. There is no proof for that. The real names of the Evangalists are not known. There are no original authored manuscripts in exiatance. Everyting in the NT is just hearsay. Even the Gospels do not agree with each other in their detail.
As far as your beloved Catholic Church is concerned, that was founded by Constantine I under the name of the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church at the Council of Nicea 325 CE. It was a political action to make Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. Immediately all those who did not "tow the line" were excommunicated and many executed. That action lasted for about 1,500 years. Constantine appointed the first Pope of the Roman Catholic Church - Sylvester I.
Any similarity between what Jeshua bar Joseph aka. Jesus the Nazarine aka. Jesus Christ is alleged to have taught is nil.
You Catholics swallow everything your Church tells you. You are told that you must obey. You must never question. You must obey the Pope. Well the Pope is a Liar for Jesus.That is what I was taught in Xavier College in Melbourne, Australia. It is run by the dreaded Jesuits.
You might not appreciate Atheism on your forum. Atheists do not appreciate the lies of Christianity on our forums.
Robert Tobin, Minister, First Church of Atheism (Philidelphia).
|
|
|
Post by Beinidict Ó Niaidh on Feb 12, 2010 8:41:05 GMT
I stated that You Roman Catholics can't handle the truth. You replied: " I might add that eccles' "you Roman Catholcs can't handle the truth" seems to me to reflect a very significant element of atheist sensibility - a belief that it is a sign of strength, courage and clear-sightedness to be a nihilist and that religious faith is the product of cowardice and evasive suburban sentimentality. " I see that you are more thick that I though you were. You couldn't see the truth and understand it if it hit you hard in the face. The truth is that Christianity is just like all other religions that believe in some supernatural diety. The truth is that there is no "Creator/God". The Bible is all fiction based on other fictious religions of the time, one example being Egyptology whence came the cock'n'bull stories about Jesus and his alleged 'virgin birth'. The Jesus myth is based on the Horus myth. The mother of Horus was Isis - a "virgin". The Bible is the worst book of fiction ever written and should be classified Fiction/Horror. You mention "eyewitnesses' of Jesus so-called "miracles" passing down their fables down to the writers of the Gospels. There is no proof for that. The real names of the Evangalists are not known. There are no original authored manuscripts in exiatance. Everyting in the NT is just hearsay. Even the Gospels do not agree with each other in their detail. As far as your beloved Catholic Church is concerned, that was founded by Constantine I under the name of the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church at the Council of Nicea 325 CE. It was a political action to make Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. Immediately all those who did not "tow the line" were excommunicated and many executed. That action lasted for about 1,500 years. Constantine appointed the first Pope of the Roman Catholic Church - Sylvester I. Any similarity between what Jeshua bar Joseph aka. Jesus the Nazarine aka. Jesus Christ is alleged to have taught is nil. You Catholics swallow everything your Church tells you. You are told that you must obey. You must never question. You must obey the Pope. Well the Pope is a Liar for Jesus.That is what I was taught in Xavier College in Melbourne, Australia. It is run by the dreaded Jesuits. You might not appreciate Atheism on your forum. Atheists do not appreciate the lies of Christianity on our forums. Robert Tobin, Minister, First Church of Atheism (Philidelphia). Is this supposed to be a clear-sighted statement of objective truth or just an insulting diatribe calculated to earn expulsion from the board? If the latter - fair enough. If the former - Eccles aka Robert Tobin would do the world's atheists a greater favour by shutting up.
|
|
eccles
New Member
My Old Horse Chester
Posts: 25
|
Post by eccles on Feb 12, 2010 9:49:20 GMT
I stated that You Roman Catholics can't handle the truth. You replied: " I might add that eccles' "you Roman Catholcs can't handle the truth" seems to me to reflect a very significant element of atheist sensibility - a belief that it is a sign of strength, courage and clear-sightedness to be a nihilist and that religious faith is the product of cowardice and evasive suburban sentimentality. " I see that you are more thick that I though you were. You couldn't see the truth and understand it if it hit you hard in the face. The truth is that Christianity is just like all other religions that believe in some supernatural diety. The truth is that there is no "Creator/God". The Bible is all fiction based on other fictious religions of the time, one example being Egyptology whence came the cock'n'bull stories about Jesus and his alleged 'virgin birth'. The Jesus myth is based on the Horus myth. The mother of Horus was Isis - a "virgin". The Bible is the worst book of fiction ever written and should be classified Fiction/Horror. You mention "eyewitnesses' of Jesus so-called "miracles" passing down their fables down to the writers of the Gospels. There is no proof for that. The real names of the Evangalists are not known. There are no original authored manuscripts in exiatance. Everyting in the NT is just hearsay. Even the Gospels do not agree with each other in their detail. As far as your beloved Catholic Church is concerned, that was founded by Constantine I under the name of the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church at the Council of Nicea 325 CE. It was a political action to make Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. Immediately all those who did not "tow the line" were excommunicated and many executed. That action lasted for about 1,500 years. Constantine appointed the first Pope of the Roman Catholic Church - Sylvester I. Any similarity between what Jeshua bar Joseph aka. Jesus the Nazarine aka. Jesus Christ is alleged to have taught is nil. You Catholics swallow everything your Church tells you. You are told that you must obey. You must never question. You must obey the Pope. Well the Pope is a Liar for Jesus.That is what I was taught in Xavier College in Melbourne, Australia. It is run by the dreaded Jesuits. You might not appreciate Atheism on your forum. Atheists do not appreciate the lies of Christianity on our forums. Robert Tobin, Minister, First Church of Atheism (Philidelphia). Is this supposed to be a clear-sighted statement of objective truth or just an insulting diatribe calculated to earn expulsion from the board? If the latter - fair enough. If the former - Eccles aka Robert Tobin would do the world's atheists a greater favour by shutting up. How dare you to tell me to SHUT up. Are you one of the Administrators here? Well I'll tell you something. This Group is the most bigoted group of idiots I have ever seen. Where is Freedom of Speech. I know where it is not -the "Holy" Roman Catholic Chuch. I know all about that. I am a bedraggled refugee from that sordid cesspool of sex sick priests who can't keep their penises in their pants. Worse tha,t they stuff them up little altar boys committing a mortal sin. Then they say Mass with that sin on their souls. At least I had the sense never to be an altar boy. I, like all Atheists will never shut up. Next month I am attending a Global Atheist Convention in Melbourne, Australia where one of the eminent speakers will be Prof. Richard Dawkins. He knows the truth about religion. I am fighting for the right of Atheists to exist and to be heard and not put up with you bunch of "Holier that Thou" Roman Catholics. I live to see the day when all religion is eradicated from this Earth and it's poison will cease to affect people's minds. I suppose I will be banned for this. Great. I will be another Martyr to the cause of reason and the truth of Atheism. As I said, Christianity was founded on a lie and acts in a fraudulent manner. The pope and all his cronies live in the lap of luxury under the protection of diplomatic immunity in an organisation riddled by crime and corruption with it's close ties to the Mafia. In the meantime they watch all the poor starving people out there and don't do their fair share of work to help them. I have seen examples of that in Melbourne. Stuff the Pope. Stuff your Church and Stuff you.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 12, 2010 11:05:58 GMT
Eccles, you disappoint me. Not only are you behaving in a most discourteous manner but you are repeating the most simplistic atheist boilerplate. To begin with, I am giving you your second warning for personally insulting the members of this board. One more offence and you will be banned. Perhaps some other participants may think this is a bit lenient, given the outrageousness of eccles' behaviour and the extent to which he operated under false pretences before showing his true colours as he has just now, but I will follow the divine precet and turn the other cheek - this time. Eccles says we wouldn't recognise the truth if it hit us in the face. He can hit us in the face all he likes, but that still won't make his views true. A brief browse on the Internet, via links accessed at that highly inaccessible source Wikipedia, comes up with this piece from the History News Network site discussing claims about the extent to which Christianity derives from the Isis-Osiris cult. The twenty leading Egyptologists consulted agreed that Christian Madonna and Child iconography is indeed influenced by images of Isis and Horus, but that there is no evidence whatsoever that the Ancient Egyptians believed Horus was the product of a virgin birth. Now who can't handle the truth? hnn.us/articles/6641.html There are no original authored manuscripts of any classical texts in existence. The Gospel manuscripts are in fact the nearest we get to one - the John Rylands Library in Manchester and the Chester Beatty Library have papyrus fragments containing a few verses of the gospel according to St. John dating from the beginning of the second century - within a few decades of the time of composition. Eccles informs us that the Catholic Church was invented by Constantine the Great at the Council of Nicaea. I am afraid Eccles has mistaken THE DA VINCI COD for a serious work of history, which says a great deal about his ability to distinguish whether the Bible is as he claims a work of fantasy/horror fiction. Already in the second century St. Irenaues of Lyons, who states that he received his teaching from the martyr St. Polycarp, who received it from the Apostle John himself (if this is hearsay - and given the nature of classical and indeed mediaeval history we have to place a good deal of reliance on hearsay - it is hearsay of a very high order, with only one link between the source and the author of the written account)
|
|
|
Post by Beinidict Ó Niaidh on Feb 12, 2010 11:39:31 GMT
Is this supposed to be a clear-sighted statement of objective truth or just an insulting diatribe calculated to earn expulsion from the board? If the latter - fair enough. If the former - Eccles aka Robert Tobin would do the world's atheists a greater favour by shutting up. How dare you to tell me to SHUT up. Are you one of the Administrators here? Eccles, as we can't agree about truth, let's get a couple of facts right. First of all, I did not tell you to shut up. You can read what I said above. If you wish clarification, I will give it. I am allowing an 'either/or'. You either believe yourself to be some sort of oracle/sage with a message for us poor, benighted fools or you are just here to insult us. Of course these are not necessarily mutually exclusive. But if you are here to insult us, that is fine. We have thick skins. If the moderator wishes to take action, that is a matter for him. I'll accept his decision either way. If on the other hand, you don't mean to insult us, but only lead us to your conviction that atheism is truth...that is another matter. You haven't demonstrated any competance in that regard on this forum yet. If you go on in the vein you are continuing to go on (and this latest post is another example), you are not doing the cause of atheism any favours - as I said you would do the world's atheists a favour by shutting up. Let me give you a corrollory of that - you are doing the world's believers a favour by going on as you do. So, Eccles, in plain and polite English, please don't shut up. Please continue as you are. You are an ideal cardboard cut out atheist. Really? We have tolerated quite a lot on this forum since I have joined from both left and right. This forum is not an official Church body; it is a forum of adherents to that Church which is open to those who are not adherents, or in the case of most of our atheist posters, those who are no longer adherents. By the way, if you want to insult the Church by putting holy (which is hardly a concept an atheist recognises any way), you could get the Church'es official title right. If you don't know, it is announced in the creed at most Sunday Masses - so I'll correct it for you - the One, 'Holy', Catholic and Apostolic Church. Funnily, the adjective that Protestant and Orthodox take most exception to is 'One'. But de gustibus non est disputandem. Do you imagine Catholics have heard nothing about clerical paedophilia? One of the first threads that was started on this forum dealt with that very issue. It was deleted when an inexperienced moderator took over but it soon was opened up again. Anyway the fact that even if a great number of priests were paedophiles (and in plain English: One case of this is far too much) has absolutely no bearing on whether God exists or not or even whether the Catholic Church is the true Church or not. It means that a great many priests have sinned greviously and failed in their respective office and there are consequences for that. I don't believe any reasonable Catholic would wish to see offenders evade those consequences. Indeed. 'High degree of probability' may be enough for an addicted gambler to stake his life savings on an outside chance in the Melbourne Cup, but it is not good enough to convict a criminal in a court of law. However, if you want to base your faith on the word of Richard Dawkins, it is one of the freedoms that western democracy allows - and the relevant Church teaching on the matter is a document called Dignitatis Humanae which confers you with the same right (whether you recognise it or not). Once again, I don't believe you should shut up, only that you would be doing your fellow atheists a favour by doing so. Fair enough. See my last observations. Hate to disappoint you mate, but religion isn't going to disappear anytime soon. Being banned from an obscure list is not tantamount to martyrdom. Anyway, it pretty much appears that this was your purpose, so I will ask Hibernicus not to ban you. You have an absolute right to these views, but I recall what another atheist, the British Labour politician Roy Hattersley observed in the wake of the voluntary efforts of relief in Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina. He did not see aid coming from secularist and humanist groups in comparison to what believers were doing. Yes - there are clergy whose lifestyles give scandal and this would be bad enough even without the paedophilia referred to above. I can't speak for Melbourne beyond horse races, but I can tell you in this country, when someone is on the bread line, they go to the Society of St Vincent de Paul. The biggest overseas development bodies Trócaire, Gorta and Concern are either Church bodies or began as Church initiatives. I am not saying I agree with all the policies of any of these - I don't. And one of the purposes of this forum is to allow free discussion of issues connected to the Church by Catholics. Helpful comments from people who are not themselves Catholic are more than welcome. You, on the other hand, seem to be more on the side of those Alaisdir above says generate heat rather than light. And I endorse his comment that this ephitet has applied to Catholic posters on this forum in the past and remind you some of them have been banned by successive moderators. Now, Eccles, if you want to contibute to discussions here in a light-generating manner, fine - I'll be the first to welcome you. If you prefer heat, my action in the future will be that of the three Billygoats Gruff in the children's fairytale, to deprive the troll of his dinner. My principal observation is that you are hardly a star player on the Atheist team. I should add, I am more than happy to be in the ranks of spectators in the Catholic vs Atheist match - I am no great apologist for the Faith myself. Nor would I even parade myself as a model Catholic. So if the compliments I made are re-paid, it will have no effect.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 12, 2010 12:19:45 GMT
Sorry for the interruption and thanks for taking up the slack, Benedict. As I said in my post, eccles is now in the Last Chance saloon. He has had his two chances, which I will give to anyone in the interests of forbearance and free discussion. One more post outside the Open Forum, one more personal insult directed at other members, and he will be banned - not for being an atheist but for being a troll whose continued presence is incompatible with reasoned discussions. Catholic trolls who behave in the same way will be banned for the same reason.
To resume where I left off - the point about Irenaeus of Lyons, writing in the late second century, i.e. over 100 years before Constantine, is that he speaks of the "Great church" or universal church whose teachings determine what is heresy, as distinct from the splinter groups that break away from it.
If Constantine invented the Church at the Council of Nicaea, how is it that he and his successors were not able to make it accept the Arians as within the bounds of orthodoxy?
Insofar as Professor Dawkins has achieved anything - as in his study of the evolutionary forces which shape the beaks of birds - he has done it by thought and experiment. You, Eccles, seem to have learned only from his namecalling and dogmatism, which has led him into the absurd position of denying that thought has any objective existence and maintaining that he himself has no free will.
In the time of St. Augustine there were people called Circumcellions in North Africa who committed suicide in the belief that this would make them martyrs. It didn't. I can think of quite a few people in the SSPX and similar groups who see themselves as fighting for the right of Roman Catholics to exist and be heard and not have to put up with self-righteous atheists. They live to see the day when all heterodoxy is eradicated from this earth and ceases to poison men's minds. These people are rightly called bigots and persecutors, and Catholics have learned from experience that the sort of Catholic theocracy which they advocate will not create paradise on earth. Some atheists have learned a similar existence from the careers of such atheist worthies as Stalin, Enver Hoxha and Pol Pot and their endeavours to liberate mankind from slavery to others in order to enslave it themselves. Others have not, and eccles is one of the latter.
[I, like all Atheists will never shut up.] Indeed, this is true - but what a pity you, unlike some other atheists, seem incapable of talking sense or engaging in a courteous exchange of views.
|
|
eccles
New Member
My Old Horse Chester
Posts: 25
|
Post by eccles on Feb 12, 2010 12:27:02 GMT
"A brief browse on the Internet, via links accessed at that highly inaccessible source Wikipedia, comes up with this piece from the History News Network site discussing claims about the extent to which Christianity derives from the Isis-Osiris cult. The twenty leading Egyptologists consulted agreed that Christian Madonna and Child iconography is indeed influenced by images of Isis and Horus, but that there is no evidence whatsoever that the Ancient Egyptians believed Horus was the product of a virgin birth. Now who can't handle the truth?" hnn.us/articles/6641.html I reject any opinions from Religious Writers. I have a very good knowledge of Egyptology and agree that much of Judeo/Christianity is copied from that Religion. Where was there a large Jewish population? Alexandria, the Capital of Egypt at that time and where the Great Library of Alexandria was and which was burned down at the orders of a Christian Bishop. It is also where the Septuagint was written, a translation from Hebrew into Koine Greek, thus beginning the many errors in the Bible due to mistranslation. "John Rylands Library in Manchester and the Chester Beatty Library have papyrus fragments containing a few verses of the gospel according to St. John dating from the beginning of the second century - within a few decades of the time of composition." A few verses. What use are they? and they are only copies. You forget the Codex Siniaticus, which. although a later document shows many differences in the wording of the scriptures. And it has much more than a "FEW VERSES". And, by the way. Who was this St. John? The names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were given to the Gospels much later by the Church. Nobody know who wrote the Gospels. Why are Sainthoods given to unknown people. The wost case was St. Veronica who never existed. The name is a mistranslation of a word. "There is no reference to the story of St Veronica and her veil in the canonical Gospels. The closest is the miracle of the woman who was healed by touching the hem of Jesus’ garment (Luke 8:43–48); her name is later identified as Veronica by the apocryphal "Acts of Pilate". The story was later elaborated in the 11th century by adding that Christ gave her a portrait of himself on a cloth, with which she later cured the Emperor Tiberius. The linking of this with the bearing of the cross in the Passion, and the miraculous appearance of the image only occurs around 1380, in the internationally popular book Meditations on the life of Christ.[7] The story of Veronica is celebrated in the sixth Station of the Cross.[8] According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the name "Veronica" comes from the Latin vera, meaning "true" or "truthful", and the Greek eikon, meaning "image"; the Veil of Veronica was therefore largely regarded in medieval times as the "true image", the truthful representation of Jesus, preceding the Shroud of Turin." As with the Shroud of Turin the so-called relic of the cloth of Veronica is a fake. Also, miracles never happened. Jesus never died on the Cross, so He never rose from the dead. Jesus used some magic tricks he learned from the Egyptian Temple Priests during his stay there, with his family and probably during the missing 20 years of his life. So I stand by what I said. As I am free from the constraints of the Catholic Church, I can find out the true story of the foundation of Judeo/Christianity. It would be interesting to see ALL that is in the secret archives of the Vatican. I'll bet the truth the Church does not want known is there. I will never be silenced.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 12, 2010 13:43:50 GMT
So you assume that any statement made by a Christian writer must be untrue because iot was a Christian who made it. How broadminded. The claim about magic tricks learned from Egyptian priests derives from Rosicrucian and Theosophist mythologisers, whose credibility - and serious scholar will state, is much less than that of the early Christian writers. I am not an egyptologist, but I doubt if any serious Egyptologist believes that. I am perfectly well aware that some elements of the apocryphal gospels have entered into the devotional life of the church, and that some popularly-venerated saints may never have existed but are tolerated because devotion to them has harmless and beneficial elements. That is not on the same level as the Gospel. Rejecting all early Christian sources out of hand as biased is like rejecting all sources for modern Irish history written by Protestants (or Catholics, depending on one's viewpoint) out of hand. The true historical scholar practices discernment, but that requires critical thought., which is difficult. Much easier to postulate grand conspiracies and sneer at anyone unconvinced by your assertions.
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on Feb 12, 2010 14:02:51 GMT
"A brief browse on the Internet, via links accessed at that highly inaccessible source Wikipedia, comes up with this piece from the History News Network site discussing claims about the extent to which Christianity derives from the Isis-Osiris cult. The twenty leading Egyptologists consulted agreed that Christian Madonna and Child iconography is indeed influenced by images of Isis and Horus, but that there is no evidence whatsoever that the Ancient Egyptians believed Horus was the product of a virgin birth. Now who can't handle the truth?" hnn.us/articles/6641.html I reject any opinions from Religious Writers. I have a very good knowledge of Egyptology and agree that much of Judeo/Christianity is copied from that Religion. Where was there a large Jewish population? Alexandria, the Capital of Egypt at that time and where the Great Library of Alexandria was and which was burned down at the orders of a Christian Bishop. It is also where the Septuagint was written, a translation from Hebrew into Koine Greek, thus beginning the many errors in the Bible due to mistranslation. "John Rylands Library in Manchester and the Chester Beatty Library have papyrus fragments containing a few verses of the gospel according to St. John dating from the beginning of the second century - within a few decades of the time of composition." A few verses. What use are they? and they are only copies. You forget the Codex Siniaticus, which. although a later document shows many differences in the wording of the scriptures. And it has much more than a "FEW VERSES". And, by the way. Who was this St. John? The names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were given to the Gospels much later by the Church. Nobody know who wrote the Gospels. Why are Sainthoods given to unknown people. The wost case was St. Veronica who never existed. The name is a mistranslation of a word. "There is no reference to the story of St Veronica and her veil in the canonical Gospels. The closest is the miracle of the woman who was healed by touching the hem of Jesus’ garment (Luke 8:43–48); her name is later identified as Veronica by the apocryphal "Acts of Pilate". The story was later elaborated in the 11th century by adding that Christ gave her a portrait of himself on a cloth, with which she later cured the Emperor Tiberius. The linking of this with the bearing of the cross in the Passion, and the miraculous appearance of the image only occurs around 1380, in the internationally popular book Meditations on the life of Christ.[7] The story of Veronica is celebrated in the sixth Station of the Cross.[8] According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the name "Veronica" comes from the Latin vera, meaning "true" or "truthful", and the Greek eikon, meaning "image"; the Veil of Veronica was therefore largely regarded in medieval times as the "true image", the truthful representation of Jesus, preceding the Shroud of Turin." As with the Shroud of Turin the so-called relic of the cloth of Veronica is a fake. Also, miracles never happened. Jesus never died on the Cross, so He never rose from the dead. Jesus used some magic tricks he learned from the Egyptian Temple Priests during his stay there, with his family and probably during the missing 20 years of his life. So I stand by what I said. As I am free from the constraints of the Catholic Church, I can find out the true story of the foundation of Judeo/Christianity. It would be interesting to see ALL that is in the secret archives of the Vatican. I'll bet the truth the Church does not want known is there. I will never be silenced. Thanks for coming. See ya ! Enjoy ur stay in Australia and have fun with ur atheists friends.
|
|
eccles
New Member
My Old Horse Chester
Posts: 25
|
Post by eccles on Feb 12, 2010 14:41:06 GMT
"Thanks for coming. See ya ! Enjoy ur stay in Australia and have fun with ur atheists friends."
What is "ur"?
And about Australia, I live there, in Queensland. I was born in Melbourne and suffered 12 years under the Jesuits at Xavier College. One of the boys I knew there was a prick named Denis Hart. He is now Archbishop of Melbourne. I hope I don't bump into him. I would not be able to guarantee his well being after the way he treated me at the Cathedral. I will be in Melbourne for 2 weeks to see what it is like after 26 years.
|
|
|
Post by Askel McThurkill on Feb 12, 2010 15:02:28 GMT
I will never be silenced. That is good. But until you begin making sense, no one will pay much attention. What did Hart do? Give you a bad tip for the Melbourne Cup? Must have been pretty bad if you're still nursing the grudge after nearly three decades.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Feb 12, 2010 16:01:14 GMT
Look guys, lay off Eccles. He obviously has issues and needs to see some Christian charity - especially as I can't see him winning a popularity contest where atheists gather to talk about things atheists talk about.
|
|