How can you literally believe...

[columbus]

Of course, when by the time you're writing up the NT, it's important to stress that "fact" to the Romans.

This is so important!
All the way up to the diaspora treason against Rome was a capital offence. The Apostles could not tell Paul anything about what Jesus did if it were against Rome, because then they'd be executed also. Thats what Paul did!
All Paul had to go on, having never met Jesus, was the ethical and mystical teachings. Even when the gospels were being written the authors had to be very careful and not let them become too public. The Romans weren't fooling around. As result there is next to no information about the vast majority of Jesus's Life and Ministry. Only the parts it was safe for a Roman to find out about.
Tom

 

[Forever_Catholic]

Of course, when by the time you're writing up the NT, it's important to stress that "fact" to the Romans.

Since Christians did not participate in the revolt, I guess it went without saying that they didn't participate. The Romans didn't need to be told. As far as I know, there has never been a need to stress that point in all of history, except in this thread.

The NT was written after the events of 70 AD, so you don't have any texts to prove Jesus said those things.

It was clearly illustrated earlier in this thread that the NT was written before 70 AD. Research it further to learn, if you haven't already, that it can only be disputed by rejecting the truth of the bible altogether. Or save yourself some time and just say you don't believe the bible.

So, if I look back at all cultures during Jesus' timeframe all over the globe, I should find reference to Jesus, since he was everywhere, right? Sensing what is going on in the rest of the world isn't the same thing as BEING everywhere on the globe and and the universe...

Since he came to clearly reveal himself to the Jews first, to be visible in human form in a specific place and time, that is where you will find the references to him at that time. If you think that God is present only where he is seen, then you have no understanding of God at all.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Do you really think records that old have not been destroyed and are still available? Some may still be found later s the diggings continue.

I have no doubts some would be destroyed. But we have sufficient evidence of the Pharaohs and many of their names, we know Alexander the Great conquered massive portions of Europe, Africa, and Asia, and even scraps of Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle have survived. But there are no external sources to account for this Jesus Resurrection.

 

[Forever_Catholic]

All Paul had to go on, having never met Jesus, was the ethical and mystical teachings.

He did meet Jesus. Spent time with Jesus. He wrote about it a few times in his letters, such in Galatians 1:11-12 -- "I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ."

 

[columbus]

He did meet Jesus. Spent time with Jesus. He wrote about it a few times in his letters, such in Galatians 1:11-12 -- "I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ."

He did not meet Jesus in the flesh like His disciples did. He claims to have had a revelation.
But I think part of the reason that the gospels got written was to tell the story and point out that Paul wasn't actually there. Even if Paul does somewhat misrepresent that fact.
Tom

 

[Forever_Catholic]

He did not meet Jesus in the flesh like His disciples did. He claims to have had a revelation.
But I think part of the reason that the gospels got written was to tell the story and point out that Paul wasn't actually there. Even if Paul does somewhat misrepresent that fact.
Tom

Do you disbelieve all of the bible, or only certain parts?

 

[columbus]

Do you disbelieve all of the bible, or only certain parts?

Only certain parts.
It would be more accurate to say that I find some parts really plausible and some not at all.
Tom

 

[Timothy Bryce]

I'm sick? Ok...don't know where you get that from. I don't support pedophiles, I support normal loving priests. Thats quite the spiteful insult. I guess you ARE saying that ALL people automatically become pedophilic when they are ordained. Once again, good logic. Not one good priest, thats quite a claim.

It has become common knowledge that the parish was a conveniently accommodating place for people with literally psychopathic tendencies.

If you had some sick desire to harm vulnerable people, becoming a priest was a great way to inflict that harm on people and mask it with obnoxious self-righteousness that (for the lack of a better term) dumb people would intrinsically grovel to.

Thank the **** christ I'm describing that **** in the past tense. Obviously the world has caught on to what was actually going on.

 

[Forever_Catholic]

Only certain parts.
It would be more accurate to say that I find some parts really plausible and some not at all.
Tom

I'm glad to know that you don't reject it all, and entirely understand that some of it does not seem plausible. It was that way for me too. Not that I have a complete understanding of the bible now, but I have seen that the more you learn about it, the more everything fits together. Many, many things in the bible make complete sense as part of the bigger picture, but don't have apparent plausibility when extracted and isolated from it. There are also a whole bunch of language problems. What was written in Hebrew of Greek back then was understood more easily than it is now as translated into English, partly because idiomatic speech only works well in the respective culture that uses it, and partly because some meanings of things have been lost or changed in translation.

 

[Timothy Bryce]

I'm glad to know that you don't reject it all, and entirely understand that some of it does not seem plausible. It was that way for me too. Not that I have a complete understanding of the bible now, but I have seen that the more you learn about it, the more everything fits together. Many, many things in the bible make complete sense as part of the bigger picture, but don't have apparent plausibility when extracted and isolated from it. There are also a whole bunch of language problems. What was written in Hebrew of Greek back then was understood more easily than it is now as translated into English, partly because idiomatic speech only works well in the respective culture that uses it, and partly because some meanings of things have been lost or changed in translation.

Well, duh.

Those simple difficulties with the bible, render it to be a text that is so far removed from the ways that it's used, it becomes dangerous.

 

[Forever_Catholic]

It has become common knowledge that the parish was a conveniently accommodating place for people with literally psychopathic tendencies.

Wanna back that up with some facts? Maybe some real statistics in comparison to real statistics pertaining to other institutions or the general population?

 

[Forever_Catholic]

Those simple difficulties with the bible, render it to be a text that is so far removed from the ways that it's used, it becomes dangerous.

If they're such simple difficulties, then why don't you understand the bible well enough to effectively argue against it?

 

[Timothy Bryce]

Wanna back that up with some facts? Maybe some real statistics in comparison to real statistics pertaining to other institutions or the general population?

Sure thing; I'll assist you:

Catholic Church sex abuse cases by country - Wikipedia

Man, that was easy.

Wikipedia is no longer a weak source either; it's credibility has improve significantly over the last ten years or so.

 

[Timothy Bryce]

If they're such simple difficulties, then why don't you understand the bible well enough to effectively argue against it?

Um, I do,

LOL

 

[Forever_Catholic]

Man, that was easy.

Easy to paste in a link on allegations of sexual abuse, but if that's your best argument, you're coming up way short. How do the numbers compare with allegations of sexual abuse in public education, workplace environments, and basically the rest of the world? There are sinners in the Church and sinners everywhere, but where do abuses occur most, and where do they occur least? I'll get you started with one basic fact, which you can check out if you want. The highest rate of sexual abuse of minors involves married men with children. Catholic priests are not in that category.

- Oh, and I forgot to mention youth sports programs. Check that one out.

 

[Forever_Catholic]

Um, I do,

LOL

Well, maybe in time.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It has become common knowledge that the parish was a conveniently accommodating place for people with literally psychopathic tendencies.

Pedophilia tendencies and orientation does not suggest psychopathic tendencies, nor are they related or similar. Through keeping up with the events as they have unfolded over the years, and reading reports, confessions, and various interviews, I see no reason to think we are dealing with a hoard of individual monsters, but rather a system of corruption and a mandate of celibacy that may be a primary root-cause behind most of it, as repressed sexuality does often turn sour and bad things are known to happen.
Really, we can also blame the idea of not questioning faith and the belief that anything human can bear the adjective "infallible."

 

[columbus]

I can only imagine the anger of Jesus if He found Himself in Creflo Dollar's new jet, or the Vatican palaces, or Pat Robertson's TV studio.
Etc. Etc.
Tom

 

[Forever_Catholic]

Pedophilia tendencies and orientation does not suggest psychopathic tendencies, nor are they related or similar. Through keeping up with the events as they have unfolded over the years, and reading reports, confessions, and various interviews, I see no reason to think we are dealing with a hoard of individual monsters, but rather a system of corruption and a mandate of celibacy that may be a primary root-cause behind most of it, as repressed sexuality does often turn sour and bad things are known to happen.

I think this is a good observation, especially regarding the mandate of celibacy. A priest must remain spiritually and physically committed throughout his life to the vows he has made. Certainly not an easy thing to do, but the great majority of them manage to.

On the other hand, there have been some who never should have become priests in the first place because of the long-lasting damage they willfully caused to their victims and to the entire Church. "System of corruption" does not apply to the entire Church, but there have been instances of corruption. Bishops trying to hide evil instead of eliminating it. Even Bishops who were or are evil. The bottom line is that a very small minority caused extensive harm affecting everyone. If they carry such offensive mortal sin to the grave, they will spend eternity in the deepest part of hell (according to private revelations).

 

[Shadow Wolf]

"System of corruption" does not apply to the entire Church

When the helm and captain are working to help cover up the abuse, how does it not apply to the entire Church? When the Cardinals are blaming the victims, how is the core not corrupt? Individuals, no, but this was going on all the way from top down to the bottom. And, nearly almost just as bad, the Pope and others are granted immunity from arrest despite their crimes. We know Benedict was in on the cover-ups, but yet he himself has not faced the consequences of his actions.