Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Do you mean that the criteria of a true religion is that?:
Then what is your criteria of the true religion?
Skeptical of the skeptics? Of the people that are skeptical? Skeptical of what per se? Always be skeptical. Its a good way to be. But if you mean in that you are skeptical of the people who are skeptical of your beliefs what does that mean for your beliefs? Are you skeptical of skepticism or just those hat don't agree with you?
Further to my Post #162
okay then.
That isn't the official sit for the RCC, and it clearly says that it is not included in the canonical scriptures. So, your own source proves you wrong. Remember that the Gospel of Peter is a completely different text. The book in question is not considered divine or accurate by the RCC.
If it is revealed religion then it should have as I stated :
One did not note the spellings. The sceptical is one who doubts if observes anomalies in the normal/natural happenings/events. The Skeptics are the people who doubt everything even if there is no anomaly they had observed, so they would doubt even if there is no reason to doubt. I am not one of them, certainly. Since they have deviated from the normal/natural, so I have to be sceptical of them.
Good, then we have to search that true religion.
I think people who believe in revelation religions would agree with you.
Fair enough, but it still is not considered scripture. And, the RCC certainly does not accept any notion that Jesus was not crucified and rose from the dead.
At least the community of Catholic accept and believe that revelation of peter is the inspired, canonical one, and testimony of the Holy Spirit.
This is not true, which was explicitly stated in the source YOU provided. It is not considered as canonical. You need to re-read, buddy. There is not a single official RCC statement that acknowledges that Jesus was not crucified. It is absolutely central and necessary to the RCC. Nice try though.
Honestly, I don't know a single Christian who believes that Jesus wasn't crucified.At least the community of Catholic accept and believe that revelation of peter is the inspired, canonical one, and testimony of the Holy Spirit.
The Traditional Roman Catholic Network
"The Independent Voice of Traditional Roman Catholicism since 1994"
And Virtual Encyclopædia of Traditional Catholicism
The First Site on the Internet for Traditional Roman Catholics
More Readers than Any Other Traditional Roman Catholic Site*
The TRADITIO Network was designated as "the English-speaking world's strongest site for Tradition" by the French traditional Catholic organization.
*The TRADITIO Network was determined by a statistical survey to be the most popular and longest-existing traditional Roman Catholic web site on the internet.
The TRADITIO Network was selected by the editors of the Encyclopædia Britannica as "one of the best on the internet when reviewed for quality, accuracy of content, presentation, and usability."
The TRADITIO Network was selected to receive the Catholic Award as "a quality Catholic Web site and for outstanding efforts made in propagating the Catholic Faith." The criteria were Catholic content, overall quality, navigability, and design appeal.
The TRADITIO Network was selected to receive the Mary Award from Holland as "a quality Catholic Web site of great Catholic thought that contains a great love for the Blessed Virgin Mary."
Good, then you already just knew, right now, that there is a community in Catholic that accept the Revelation of Peter. Where, the revelation of Peter to be precise reject and oppose the crucifixion of Jesus.
You have yet to show any indication of any Catholic group accepting the revelation of Peter as scripture. In fact, your source explicitly stated that it was not considered to be scripture.
That is mostly nonsensical. Nihilism which is the extreme form of skepticism which doubts everything even themselves, their existence ect. However being skeptical simply means that you don't take everything at face value without questioning for verification. That is the natural form of people. It is rational distrust. I too am skeptical of nihilists in their ventures but not of skeptics alone.