Feel free to ask questions, discuss Catholic theology, history, saints, share artwork, chants, etc.
Welcome: All Respectful Christians, Deists and Atheists
Not Welcome: Anti-Catholic Protestants
>But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God.
2 Timothy 3:1-4
>>1112180
Would you be able to respond to these claims put across by Constantine regarding Aquinas and the legitimacy of his theology?
>Aquinas literally advocated idolatry of the cross (giving latria to it on grounds that it partakes of Christ's self), anyone who thinks he's a great theologian hasn't read him.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4025.htm#article4
>Yes, it places Aristotle as a higher source than the Church Fathers. For instance, there are many instances of the Church Fathers describing God in terms of energy-essence distinction: https://www.suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?qid=1246&catid=383
>However, the Scholastics redefine God as Actus Purus. This is wholly and only derived from Aristotle, it has ZERO precedent in Patristic writings.
Was this post in response any accurate?
>Wasnt that only reserved for the true cross and only to the blood of Christ upon it and not the wood itself? You make it sound like he thinks all crosses deserve latria.
>>1112180
>Anti-Catholic Protestants
There's another kind?
>>1112274
>le idolatry meme
See >>1112263
>>1112295
That doesnt deal with the points raised, Aquinas was not talking about veneration but latria which is the worship specifically for God
>>1112351
>That doesnt deal with the points raised
It does since the cross (object) is never mistaken for God Himself.
Pic related is actual idolatry.
>>1112417
>It does since the cross (object) is never mistaken for God Himself.
I dont know if you are being facetious here but the the point he was making was that by giving latria - which is reserved for God to the cross which is not constitutes such a mistake.
Likewise do you have an answer for the other part of his argument?
>>1112180
Share your catholic firstnames
>Thomas
>>1112180
Is Genesis literal?
>>1112445
just our cucky pope m8, most catholics are conservative traditionalists
>>1112478
He's right, Catholics are rallying behind Trump in contrast with the Pope, which is surprising considering the portion of them who are Mexican.
http://www.catholic.org/news/politics/story.php?id=68163
Muslim here.
Do Catholics have any obligation to follow the stuff in Pope Francis' encyclical?
And how do you do have the time to read the whole thing? Or is it just your priest that's required to?
>>1112434
The issue here is semantics.
>>1112584
Do you understand that semantics doesnt mean meaningless or trivial?
Aquinas is making some very serious claims and claims that are a big sticking issue for the Schism.
>>1112472
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVsbVAVSssc
>>1112584
It would be if it weren't for the fact that the Seventh Ecumenical Council happened hundreds of years before Aquinas and gave dogmatic definition to these various terms, so as to clear up once and for all the iconoclast crisis, since the iconoclasts accused Christians of paying latria to icons. If Aquinas wrote in the 4th Century or something like that, then you could argue that it's just semantics, but he didn't, and he was an extremely learned man who was meticulously legalistic and was surely familiar with this council's rulings.
>>1112180
When were the works of the Church Fathers written how big is the gap between this and the manuscript evidence?
>>1112695
Church Fathers generally means anyone after the first generation of Christians, so basically 2nd Century onward. Roman Catholics have a cut off point, but the title of Church Fathers is still applied in the Orthodox Church continually, but it's generally takes hundreds of years to get the recognition.
>>1112710
Although technically Church Fathers includes the first generation as well, I just mean how the phrase tends to be applied.
>>1112710
How old are their manscripts/works?
>but the title of Church Fathers is still applied in the Orthodox Church continually,
What is the latest church father chronologically?
>>1112728
How old depends on which Church Father you're talking about. Saint Irenaeus is probably the most famous Church Father of the 100's, and his writings make is abundantly clear that Orthodox and Catholics are very much in line with the Church from long before Constantine legalized it.
Theophan the Recluse is the latest theologian often referred to as a Church Father, I think.
>>1112710
>The Orthodox Church
This is something that's always got me. Isn't the Orthodox Church fairly decentralized with a bunch of regional variations?
>>1112438
hello NSA
>>1112752
Yes, as His Eminence Hilarion puts it, the Orthodox Church, in contrast with the RCC< is a confederation of churches, as opposed to a centralized organization
He is a great theologian and an awesome composer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kC13O-GdMw
>>1112763
Then, how do they come to decisions like how to decide who is a church father?
>>1112773
A Church Father must be a canonized saint, must be well versed in theology, and must teach uncompromising truth. If all those standards are met, that's pretty much a wrap, it's just a question of enough time passing to make him venerable.
>>1112752
http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2012/11/26/an-eastern-orthodox-christian-looks-west/
Here is a nice article on it by a former member
Could someone answer my question? >>1112545
>>1112180
So I hate to ask this question since I know it's used as the butt end of a bunch of stupid jokes, but I'm genuinely curious. There are literally thousands of cases in just the past few decades alone of Catholic priests buggering little boys. How the hell does this reverberate in the Catholic community? Is this talked about at all? Is this viewed as a huge problem that needs fixing? I really enjoy the aesthetics of the church, the culture behind the church, and I've thought about joining, but that part is honestly a huge turn off.
>>1112793
>here is a nice article by an apostate
>>1112746
>How old depends on which Church Father you're talking about. Saint Irenaeus is probably the most famous Church Father of the 100's, and his writings make is abundantly clear that Orthodox and Catholics are very much in line with the Church from long before Constantine legalized it.
Is there a list of these along with the age of the earliest examples of their work like there is with the bible?
>Theophan the Recluse is the latest theologian often referred to as a Church Father, I think.
Dam that pretty recent and seems to really lower the bar for Church father status
>>1112799
>Im going to come to a Catholic thread and whine when people post works written by Catholics
>>1112798
>Pope who tried to stop it since before he was Pope ends up getting the shaft
>Pope who helped hide it gets made a saint
Pretty sad, desu
>>1112802
>Is there a list of these along with the age of the earliest examples of their work like there is with the bible?
I don't think there is any comprehensive list. The earliest I can think of is Ignatius of Antioch, who was born around the time Christ was Crucified, and was the direct disciple of John. Although he is often groups as an Apostolic Father, which means first generation Fathers, but I say Church Father because his work is not in Scripture.
>>1112807
Because the work is designed specifically to attack the Orthodox Church, it's not just some article on how to pray the Rosary.
>Dam that pretty recent and seems to really lower the bar for Church father status
Church Fathers all witness the same truth, that's what defines them. They don't innovate or add, and if they do, then they aren't Church Fathers
>>1112825
>and was the direct disciple of John
Citation needed
>>1112829
His letters
>>1112545
>Muslim here
>>1112825
>I don't think there is any comprehensive list. The earliest I can think of is Ignatius of Antioch, who was born around the time Christ was Crucified, and was the direct disciple of John. Although he is often groups as an Apostolic Father, which means first generation Fathers, but I say Church Father because his work is not in Scripture.
That seems to be a pretty serious problem given the central role they play in the faith
>>1112841
Show me where he says this
>>1112819
If you mean the Catholic Church as a whole this may be true but if you're just talking about the priesthood I honestly doubt it.
>>1112825
>Because the work is designed specifically to attack the Orthodox Church, it's not just some article on how to pray the Rosary.
He just explains his experience with the Church and why he left it just because he disagrees doesnt make it an "attack" anymore than your posts are attacks
Bumping for an answer on this post >>1112274
>>1112798
>that part is honestly a huge turn off
Evil is literally everywhere. Also:
>Sue Widemark A Penn State historian, Philip Jenkins, has done in-depth research of pedophilia and sexual abuse among the clergy and has come up with some rather eye opening facts (Pedophiles and Priests, Anatomy of a Crisis, Oxford University Press, 1996, Paperback edition, 2001). It seems that while .2 to 1.7 percent of Catholic clergy have been guilty of pedophilia (or sexual abuse particularly of boys, p. 80-82), a whopping 10 percent of Protestant ministers have been found guilty of sexual misconduct with a 2 or 3 percent pedophilia rate (p. 50-52).
>This is all the more interesting, notes Jenkins, since there has been NO media term "Pastor Pedophilia" coined at all! Jenkins theorizes that the media, proving the 'point' of the 'necessity' of sexual promiscuity, overemphasizes any instance of pedophilia found among the Catholic clergy since it can use this to criticize the entire idea of celibacy. But it is interesting that the NON Celibate Protestant ministers have a MUCH GREATER problem with it than the celibate Catholic priests!
>Jenkins' research was based on several highly respected studies and statistics. He points out that whereas sexual misconduct has always been a problem, among Catholic and non-Catholic clergy as well as among the general populace, what is new now is that the 'problem' of priest sexual abuse, constructed by the media as a result of a 'moral panic' occurring in the mid-1980's.
http://www.catholic-convert.com/wp-content/uploads/SexInProtestantChurches.pdf
>>1112853
Constantine's posts are attacks
>>1112845
I can't give you a direct reference to the name, but he says that he wishes to be found to the company of the Christians of Ephesus, who were always of one mind with the Apostles, which gives him a direct link.
>>1112863
you are missing the point, the issue was that the Church hid these people when they knew it was happening and did not cooperate with the authorities until very recently.
It was the institutional aspect of it that was most horrific
>>1112853
It's an attack full of heresy, suggesting that Christ is not a living authority, but only the Pope is.
>>1112880
Hypothesis: No contemporary source links Ignatius to John, but only church tradition written down latter, which cannot be verified or falsified
>>1112863
To me I think the biggest problem isn't that the rate of molestation is necessarily greater in the church, it's that the church hierarchy itself has gone through great lengths to keep these events quiet. When they find out one of their priests has been diddling kids they don't call the authorities, they don't even bar them from the priesthood, they just move them to another diocese and hope they don't do it again. This doesn't happen in those other institutions mentioned such as school districts and the boy scouts. School districts will not defend child molesters. The boy scouts, an organization mostly run by parents, will not defend child molesters. Even protestant ministries do not have an entire infrastructure to rely upon like the Catholic Church does.
>>1112901
He's linked to the Apostles, tradition says John in particular. The simplest explanation is that tradition is correct, as opposed to saying, "Maybe it was another Apostle." Well, we know it was at least one Apostle, and tradition says John, so the Apostle is presumed to be John by default, as there is no particularly strong reason to presume another.
>>1112914
>He's linked to the Apostles,
Again, how do we know this.
>The simplest explanation is that tradition is correct
It is not logical to assume Church tradition is correct without collaboration by a source close to the event, archeology, etc. No one trained in the historical method would do this.
>>1112902
not condemning =/= condoning
>tfw haven't gone to confession in 5 years due to anxiety with talking with the priest
>My church doesn't have a confessional
I sort of want to go to a a traditional catholic church, but there's not that many around, and I wouldn't know the difference in etiquette between it and post-Vatican II etiquette, other than I've noticed that some people tend to dress more casually than how it used to be.
>>1112939
Is that honestly all you have to say on that issue
rosary, adoration, incense and low mass after a confession is maximum comfy.
heretics and heathens will never know those feels.
>>1112887
>It's an attack full of heresy, suggesting that Christ is not a living authority, but only the Pope is.
Catholics here would say similar thing about the comments and claims you make towards the Pope and the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles.
In respect to >>1112843 how far after the life of Christ would words/works attributed to the Church Fathers have to be before becoming suspect?
>>1112793
He's still Orthodox, just that he ecumenical
>>1112939
>church knows about the issue
>doesn't condemn and even turns a blind eye when it continues to happen
Look man they fucked up. It's obvious they wanted to maintain their public image. They were unwittingly condoning the behavior by not simply defrocking those priests when it occurred. They knowingly harbored and possibly still do harbor child molesters.
It's so simple. the Son of God came down from heaven. his direct disciples started the church based on His life and word. It is still here today.
Why anyone would listen to arrogant Germans with their own fanfaction, creating a massive abomination, is beyond stupid.
>>1113043
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kd66KXIbAjc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xL2Hyve-kwg
>worshiping a dead kike on a stick
>>1112994
some women wear veils to mass at my parish and the lines for confession go out the door.
there are serious and pious churches still out there. finding one is key.
>>1113056
See >>1112263
>>1113055
worse than atilla the hun.
Luther's lineage is responsible for all the megachurch "gospel of wealth" poison killing Christianity.
>>1113056
One day you will realize the depth of God's love and cry because of His infinite grace.
One day it will all "click".
He loves you no matter what. You can even thank him in person through prayer.
It's free, and all you get in return is eternal life.
>>1113095
you forgot the eternal torture possibility. oh yes God's love is a grand thing
FUCKING CATHOLICS GET OUT REEEEEEEEE
Nah jk
Question:
Why should there be a Pope and cardinals?
>>1113122
Hell is the absence of God.
If you choose to separate from Him, he respects your wishes. He wants us to live the best lives possible and even gives us the study guide. The rest is up to you.
You are constantly immersed in the presence of God whether you realize it or not.
When all of the love and grace is removed...well...you're left with what is described as Hell.
But hey, that apple of luciferian enlightenment was tasty, right?
>>1113149
>Hell is the absence of God.
Why does the RCC think this? You cannot even exist for an instance without God's love permeating and sustaining every fiber of your being. Hell is to be conscious of this, but to hate it.
>>1113125
honestly, infrastructure.
if everyone isn't accountable and "on message" then we end up like the goofy protestants, handling snakes and every "reverend" starting their own petty power-trip McChurch.
>>1113162
less fire and brimstone (active punishment), more of a sacred shunning (disappointed parents). i'd like to know more how hate factors in, though.
>>1113125
>And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Matthew 16:18-19
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KV6PXSODgE
>>1113166
this
>>1113190
If you hate God, then you hate his energies. For those who love him, these energies are light, for those who hate him (or are deeply ashamed), they are fire (Hebrew 12:29). Heaven and hell are the same in Orthodox theology, but your experience of it depends on your relationship with God
>>1113207
So what are heaven and hell like?
>>1113166
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e5lbnBMP2U
>Protestants
>>1113209
Heaven/hell just means the spiritual dimension. It fully intersects with the physical dimension, but sin veils our ability to detect it. Pray, fasting, humility, and so on, clear up your spiritual senses, which are purifies with Christ's blood. It is bliss if you love God, you can feel his love on every atom of your body and see it everywhere. Those who do not love God eventually become acutely aware of it with the Final Judgement, though, anyway, but it is deeply disagreeable to them, and they wish for the veil back to numb it.
Can I get ans answer to >>1113025?
Reconsilation is really hard to get to. All the parishes in my area offer such strange times like 7-9 AM on Tuesdays and Thursdays and noon on Saturdays. Kinda difficult to get a meeting with a priest and I have mortal sin on my soul. Gotta figure it out.
>>1113236
The core works are those collected in Scripture. The works not in Scripture are the generation after them. What makes a work suspect is whether or not it is in line with a contincious tradition, not how long after it is written. If there were some gap of a hundred years, it would be one thing, but there's not. There's plenty of writings in the first century, the second, the third, and so on, and the writings are deemed suspect based on whether or not they are in line with the thread of unchanging tradition which can be traced.
>>1113095
I think the great tragedy of our times is that this is no longer the case as atheism is not a willing rejection of God but a total ignorance. Its in the same vein of people saying you are just rejecting cosmic consciousness of the Jains or Allah. Islam and Jainism aren't even a factor in your thinking, at best they are a worry for material reasons or a quaint source of jokes,
We are literally living in the greatest age of apostasy the church has ever known and whats worse is that its not the church being attacked but faith simply rotting passively
>>1113244
>There's plenty of writings in the first century
completely false. we have no christian documents that date to the first century. The gospels are likely to have been written no earlier than the end of the first century. the first references we have to the gospels is mid 2nd century
>>1113221
Feel free to dismiss the following assertions outright.
There have been two descriptions from individuals brought back from clinical death through modern medical intervention who have described being sent to hell before revival.
Terrifying stuff.
Both secular, one man one woman, both describing being devoured alive by demons before revival.
Again, anecdotal at best, but for believers it can serve as a warning.
In fact, the man was so moved he dedicated his life to God (he was previously an art professor) and is now clergy.
Dear Big Brother Catholosism,
I'm sorry we left on such bad terms, and on such a spur of the moment. Surely now that we've both cooled our heads we can find common ground. I ended up being more like you than I realized, far more than the crowd I fell in with. What do you say?
Little brother Anglicanism
>>1113244
> If there were some gap of a hundred years, it would be one thing, but there's not.
But you've just said in earlier posts you don't actually know about their historicity source wise.
If they do come later on then it could easily be an example of the early church or its members being tricked or fabricating arguments to justify their views. [not that im saying this must be the case]
>>1113266
>Again, anecdotal at best, but for believers it can serve as a warning.
What about when this doesnt happen like in the case of NDE or when it happens to Muslims?
Does their faith suddenly get proof?
>>1113250
Yep, people have replaced Christianity with a vague construct of "I F#CKING LOVE SCIENCE". They think that because we can now read the blueprints we can dismiss everything else.
>>1113266
near death experiences =/= death. it doesn't even make sense in christian theology. how can you be brought back from hell? in order to be in hell you have to be dead. so if every person who has had a near death experience and was "brought back to life" then modern science has created a miracle on par with Jesus
>>1113266
The problem with "brought back from clinical death" is that what we think of as death that someone can be brought back from isn't exactly. Death isn't exactly an on/off process, but instead a transitional thing, and there is quite a wide margin in the process in which many classic signs of life wont be detectable, but a human can still be brought back.
Further, even secular people can't escape the fact the Christian notions of eternal paradise and torment are pretty fundamental in our society; there are depictions of them everywhere, and plenty of people that believe in them. So even if you actively reject the notion, it's still there in your mind, which will wander, as minds do.
My point is simply that I wouldn't put too much stock in it. If they were truly dead, they couldn't have been brought back, and even if they were secular they still have ideas of hell and such in their mind.
>>1113280
That's a terrific question. I remember hearing of a team at UVA studying it.
>>1113288
Its not just science its also vague mysticism. Even for the bulk of religious on census forms God is just someone who moderates luck and lets you see your dead friends and family when you die. Religion is literally evaporating into cultural superstition like black cats and the evil eye
I once talked to a priest who told me that people like Buddhists in Asia can go to purgatory if they do not have mortal sin on their soul at death. What do you guys think about that? Im sure they dont have too much of an opportunity to fully hear the good word.
>>1113261
So when do you date Paul's Epistles?
>>1113261
I also must ask if you think Heraclitus is to be dated to the oldest reference.we have to his writings
>>1113305
"I'm not religious but I'm very spiritual," said the sorority girl after finishing her fourth shot.
>>1113288
this
>>1113321
And yet they happened, and yet they're true.
Have you considered that perhaps those people were given a great gift? Perhaps Hell really is what they described it to be, and they were shown a glimpse of it, for the purpose of both saving their own souls and of spreading the Gospels?
God isn't stuck in the Bronze Age, after all. He moves and lives even in our modern world. Now that we have the ability to revive people from clinical death, why wouldn't he choose to make use of our newfound power to teach a lesson?
>>1113095
What if I don't fucking want eternal life? What if I want a conclusive end to my existence at some point?
>>1113326
Dont kid yourself its not just them but everywhere, look how many people stopped going to church when they were no longer forced to by family. This rot is everywhere and was the whole reason why the pedo scandal actually caused people to leave the Church en mass.
Most christians come pretty close to this thinking as well
>>1113333
Why wouldn't God just give everyone an image of hell? Your God sounds like a fickle asshole that doesn't actually want anyone to be saved.
>>1113318
you miss my point. we don't have any first century documents. the record of early christianity is very slim until the time of Constantine. of course we have documents from that early period but there are documents not copied or destroyed because they no longer fit the accepted doctrine or changed to fit the accepted doctrine. the record of early christianity is hardly reliable, especially when the story of their leader was put to relatively late and not by eyewitnesses
>>1113333
>Have you considered that perhaps those people were given a great gift? Perhaps Hell really is what they described it to be, and they were shown a glimpse of it, for the purpose of both saving their own souls and of spreading the Gospels?
It seems strange that he would give this gift Muslims as well.
>it's another "jesus is the Messiah" episode
>>1112274
What is this? More bullshit from Constantine?
Aquinas is very careful to always cite the Church Fathers in his theology. In particular he loves to quote Augustine. He also makes heavy use of Paul, who himself refers back to Genesis and to Abraham. Aquinas' theology is rooted firmly in Scripture and the early days of the Church.
Regarding the cross itself, it's an image/embodiment matter. It's rather Platonic, and Christianity's absorption of Platonism is as old as Origen. All crosses sort of echo the One Cross, and the Cross is the very essence of Christ. It is on the Cross that Christ does his great work of salvation. We should always venerate the cross, the torture instrument of slaves that has been made into the throne and seat of God Himself. All crosses share in the truth of the Cross, and the Cross shares in Christ, and so should be venerated.
What matters is a recognition of origin. There is no problem venerating the cross as long as you know where the power lies. It's the same with the Saints and the Virgin Mary. Remember that all their power originates in God, and remember that God is ultimately the one deserving of praise, and all will be well.
>>1113348
Paul's epistles are from the first century.
>>1113353
Plus all the people of various religious backgrounds who primarily have positive NDEs. These events count for actual proof of very little and are most likely just your brain going haywire as it and the rest of your body dies.
>>1113359
he's right. pack it up, boys. there's no coming back from this meme.
>>1113348
Every single Gospel is by an eye witness (even Mark's, which was dictated by Peter), save Luke, who relied on asking for accounts, which is why his fleshes out the early life of Christ more.
>>1113366
reread my post. I wasn't disagreeing with that
>>1113378
>Every single Gospel is by an eye witness
*Attributed to an eye witness
>>1113370
They are occurrences which make no sense within the bounds of medical science. They happen and there is no explanation for them, at least not a credible one.
As for why each person sees his or her own God... that's a difficult question. I have my own hypothesis, but it's hardly orthodox.
>>1113378
even christian scholars acknowledge that none of them are eyewittnesses. church tradition =/= fact
>>1113386
Yes you were. Paul's epistles fit the definition of the documents you say we don't have. Why did you exclude them?
>>1113378
Im the anon from the start of the thread, would you be able to respond to this poster because im looking at these two points and am not seeing a clear case.
>>1113362
>All crosses sort of echo the One Cross, and the Cross is the very essence of Christ. It is on the Cross that Christ does his great work of salvation. We should always venerate the cross,
The point is that Aquinas says we should go above veneration and worship it (latria) as we do God.
>>1113403
we don't have Paul's actual letters nor copies of them made in the first century. you are completely misunderstanding my argument
>>1113397
>They are occurrences which make no sense within the bounds of medical science. They happen and there is no explanation for them, at least not a credible one.
Be wary of using the God of gaps thinking here.
> I have my own hypothesis, but it's hardly orthodox.
What is it?
>>1113056
>dead
>>1113397
It's not just people seeing their own god or group of gods. People who were never religious in the first place have had positive experiences, and people in general have had absurd experiences. And even more people have no experience at all.
>>They are occurrences which make no sense within the bounds of medical science.
Hmm so, some people hallucinating due to their brain being deprived of oxygen cannot be explained by medical science?
Somehow I find that a doubtful prospect, even if such is true right now it won't remain that way for long.
>>1113409
Well, my thinking is that the peoples of various religions are under the sway of the spirits that they worship.
I think it's a great fallacy for certain Christians to assert that, for example, Hinduism is only superstition. The same with Islam. I think that's nonsense. There are a billion Muslims and a billion Hindus in the world. Are they praying to nothing? Of course they aren't. It's daffy to think that.
I don't know what Ganesh is. I don't know what Allah is. As a Christian, I don't think they are the same as Jesus Christ, who is God--how could I? But I think there is some reality to them. I think they are very powerful and hold some sway over their followers. And I think that, when their followers have something like a near-death experience, they are able to sway their spirits to experience what they want them to experience.
Again, I don't know why non-Christian religions persist. I suppose I have to have faith that it's part of God's ultimate plan. I feel like Job when God lectures him out of the whirlwind; I am reminded that I cannot fathom God's ways. But, again, I believe that people of robust religions aren't praying to nothing. I suppose it stems from my faith in human nature and human intelligence. I don't think it's possible to fool people by the billions. So I think that, while I believe Christ is God, there is a certain reality to the gods of other religions, and this extends to what their adherents see during NDEs.
>>1113398
>Christ predicts the fall the temple
>obviously he couldn't have predicted this, that's crazy, must have been a lie written after the Destruction
Yeah, you're talking about very liberal Christian scholars.
>>1113404
Which is idolatry. The difference between an icon and an idol, is that an idol purports to "partake" of what it represents (which Aquinas says the cross does here, and that is why it deserves latria, because it partakes of Christ). Big difference between icon+veneration and idol+latria
>>1113390
Can't know nuffin, eh?
>>1113432
I've seen this claim countless times. Is there any reason to believe that's the sole reason they reject the claim he predicted that?
>>1113429
>I don't know what Allah is
Islam's? Satan.
>>1113438
It's the main cut-off in dating, scholars say the Gospels cannot be dated earlier than the Destruction of the Second temple for this and only this reason. Otherwise, sure, the Gospels *could* be dated later, but there would be no reason to reject Papias's attribution of authorship.
I'm not saying, from the perspective where you a priori assume the miraculous is nonsense, that it's not sound methodology. But to try to use it against Christians is ridiculous, because it's based on methodology that presumes the Gospels are false to begin with, it doesn't prove the Gospels are false to someone who takes the miraculous as possible, that's circular reasoning.
>these miracles didn't happen
>why not
>because dating their description based on the presumption these miracles didn't happen, shows they didn't happen
>>1113437
>Can't know nuffin, eh?
Well, knowledge is impossible. The sooner you make peace with that, the happier you'll be.
But he does raise a point, is there any verification?
>>1113437
>Can't know nuffin, eh?
We certainly can't know who the actual authors of the gospels are some 2000 years after they were written.
>>1113447
Except I find it very doubtful they would reject the dating of the gospels on that basis, and in fact suspect this to be an idiotic Christian strawman.
The reason is simple: predicting the fall of a temple is not miraculous, it's just fucking lucky; there's no reason to assume that this would be an impossible thing to predict in a political climate like Roman Judea's.
So, prove your moronic claim, or shut the fuck up.
>>1113438
surely there are many who argue that, but I believe there are other arguments as well.
>>1113447
And you seem to think the default thinking should be to accept church tradition on an issue until there is physical evidence proving it wrong.
In reality we should have skepticism towards the foundational claims of any religion. Its not like the founders have an incentive to record potentially embarrassing facts and circumstances.
>>1113432
the late date is not dependent on this. the most compelling evidence is the ignorance of Clement to the gospel story. Ignatius is the earliest church father to show knowledge of the gospel story but his understanding differs from our current gospels and he refers to it as "the gospel," in other words he is not aware of more than one version nor does he put a name to his gospel. the first reference to the canonical gospels is mid 2nd century. btw there is no way Matthew, Luke and John can be eyewittnesses as they borrow a ton of content from Mark
>>1113449
>Well, knowledge is impossible
post-modernism pls go
the wages of your amorality are clear and they are horrifying. the marxism thread is that way.
>>1112180
Atheist here.
You guys believe some weird shit, but I'll take you over mouth-breathing American Protestants any day.
>>1113459
Well, you could try to prove knowledge to be possible.
>>1113452
I feel like you can bounce that argument around and turn it on the skeptics, though. Why WOULDN'T adherents of a religion studiously record the precise details of that religion's founding? Aren't they devoted? Aren't they zealous? Don't they think the most accurate record makes them look better, not worse?
Consider how the Gospel of John goes to such great lengths to include eyewitness testimony for the facts of the Crucifixion and the Resurrection. These guys seemed to really want to include as many exact details as possible of the events that took place. Isn't that important?
>>1113449
Papias attributes the authorship.
If these were just regular testimonies of non miraculous events, with that attribution of authorship, it would be taken for granted that they are the authors, unless there was good evidence to believe otherwise. The constant effort to say they aren't even written by their purported authors is just a cheap way to try to discredit Christianity. It is THAT far fetched that, if Christ were a real person, some of the people who were closest with him wrote (or at least dictated, in the case of Mark) eyewitness accounts? Regardless of whether or not you think the accounts are true, trying to say it was written by someone else a long time later is just really cheap, since there is no evidence for it, and if it were a secular matter it would be taken for granted.
>>1113450
We can't know Plato wrote the Socratic dialogues either, I guess.
>>1113463
>Isn't that important?
Only in so far as it supports the claims of a religion.
Skeptics don't outright reject parts of the bible that seem to match up with reality. They've accepted the historical parts that match up with archaeological evidence, for instance.
>>1113464
>We can't know Plato wrote the Socratic dialogues either, I guess.
Why do you always bring this up? The reason no one disputes that shit is there's no reason to. Plato writing the Socratic dialogues is not an extraordinary claim, it has no impact on your life, and no one is going to use it as an excuse to try and wrangle political power in the name of
the inane pursuit of ideology.
>If these were just regular testimonies of non miraculous events, with that attribution of authorship, it would be taken for granted that they are the authors, unless there was good evidence to believe otherwise.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. You don't get the benefit of the doubt because schmucks like you would happily use this shit as an excuse to push your shit left and right.
>>1113451
>Except I find it very doubtful they would reject the dating of the gospels on that basis
You'd think so, but no, it's a central topic on dating the Gospels
https://books.google.com/books?id=XCPQ1NqyP6IC&pg=PA56&lpg=PA56&#v=onepage&q&f=false
>>1113452
What constitutes "physical evidence", exactly? Papias testifies as to the authorship, that's a lot closer in time than all the people we take as accurate who testify Heraclitus wrote this and that
>>1113473
Prove. Your. Claim. That random snippet of text proved jack shit.
>>1113470
Christ's disciples writing works about him is not an "extraordinary claim" either, even if the idea that there witness is accurate is
>>1113476
Stop bringing up random historical authors as though they're of equal concern. The authorship of their works is irrelevant. the authorship of the gospels is not THIS IS THE DIFFERENCE, YOU THICK-HEADED PIECE OF SHIT.
>>1113479
The gospels themselves are full of extraordinary claims, you moron. So of course they get subject to greater scrutiny than a random philsopher. Why are you such a stupid cunt? Did you eat paint?
>>1113478
What. It says about half of Biblical scholars look at the predication as proof of a post 70 CE dating, whereas the rest (probably Christian) look at it as proof of pre-70 dating. There are plenty of citations there
70 CE is the cut off
>>1113488
It didn't prove shit. It made a claim, and then dropped a bunch of names.
>>1113504
>
In the year 70, Roman armies destroyed Jerusalem and its Temple, effectively ending a Jewish revolt against the Empire that had begun four years earlier.
>Although some scholars disagree, the vast majority of researchers believe that Mark was the first Gospel to be written, sometime around the year 70.
http://www.bc.edu/schools/stm/crossroads/resources/birthofjesus/intro/the_dating_of_thegospels.html
>>1113460
>You guys believe some weird shit
?
>>1113221
>Heaven/hell just means the spiritual dimension. It fully intersects with the physical dimension, but sin veils our ability to detect it.
Genuinely curious, do you have any sources for this?
>>1113267
Uh oh, the protestants are here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mLuEWzqtr8
>>1113508
Ok, that doesn't prove your claim either. It proves they believe it was written in the year 70. Not that they believe it as such because it would be impossible to predict the destruction of the temple (which I said earlier, is a fucking stupid reason, as there is plenty of shit from the bible secular scholars accept the bible got right, and because predicting the destruction of a major Jewish religious center in a time of Jewish revolt is not an impressive feat).
>>1113462
<smug argument guy.jpg>
PoMo died when your prophet DFW took his last trip to the garage.
Go facebank for Bernie and plan for shabbat.
Your tribe should have learned about interfering with Catholics by now.
Yes, I want to know how christainity was beneficial to humanity. Thank you.
>>1113523
DFW? I have no idea what you're even talking about. You can't get around the fact that everything we learn is reflected through our faulty senses and our own internal biases. You'll never experience anything as it is, only what your brain tells you what it is, and so you wont know anything.
>>1112180
The Vatican and Holy See is the actual successor to the Roman Empire, right?
Rome to Byzantines to HRE to Italy to Vatican City State?
>>1113460
WE believe weird shit? You're the ones who believe this all was just a very fortunate (10^46) chemical reaction.
>>1113531
The Church is the Church and has never been anything but the Church.
Its the Orthodox that are messily entangled with the Roman Empire. The Emperor was the head of their Church, after all.
>Someone might claim, “You have faith and I have action.” But how can I see your faith apart from your actions? Instead, I’ll show you my faith by putting it into practice in faithful action. It’s good that you believe that God is one. Ha! Even the demons believe this, and they tremble with fear. Are you so slow? Do you need to be shown that faith without actions has no value at all?
James 2:18-20
>>1113538
Is that what I said?
>>1113538
Yeah, that's pretty weird. Especially compared to the believe that a formless, perfect being that is itself uncaused one day felt dissatisfied with its own perfect existence and decided to create an imperfect world out of nothing, and then decided to create beings that it expected to act like obedient robots, yet gave them the ability to not act like obedient robots, which resulted in them fucking it up, which he had to forgive them and all their descendents for by sacrificing himself to himself, but he requires that everyone psychically acknowledge this and never masturbate or he'll torture them for eternity.
>>1113529
quite the scholar
someone let jaden smith out of Plato's cave
>The only instruments of observation are our eyes
>>1113548
So, do you think your senses to be faultless?
>>1113529
>he thought you were some critical theorist
>you're probably just some mystical sounding non-native english speaker
Good night, anons. God bless you.
>>1113546
That's actually pretty funny. Bible confused me too.
>>1113554
I'm not trying to be mystical sounding. I just acknowledge that faulty tools will only ever produce a faulty product.
Can I ask if religion benefited humanity? Thank you.
>>1113546
I wasn't gonna say it, but yeah, basically that. I was trying to be nice.
>>1113476
Claiming your gospels are written by the apostles gives them more credence as "eye witness" documents.
But the main reason we dont trust his testimony is that modern techniques like textual analysis have shown the claims to be unlikely.
If something similar was done to another historical text we would doubt the claims of authorship for the same reason. In this case there was an added incentive for early Christians to exaggerate the authorship because it adds weight to the testimony there in.
So we dont automatically dismiss church tradition, but when something appears to contradict it or make it seem unlikely we challenge it. This doesn't just happen in church history, it happens every day in far less controversial subjects. Something is found that contradicts an old text and what everyone thought for a thousand years gets thrown out or called into question
>>1113560
Arguably. It provides an escape from existential questions that can cause someone displeasure, and religious institutions have done a lot to preserve literature and provided networks of support for the poor. They've also been behind some fucked up shit, and destroyed their fair share of literature as well.
As an atheist, I think I'd rate their presence historically as a net benefit, but not consider their presence inherently beneficial.
>>1113563
Hard to say, we've never had a recorded period where a society was never influenced by it. Even in modern secular societies much of their culture is based upon previous religious beliefs.
It's like asking if ideas ever benefited humanity.
>>1113546
God's pretty strange, read Job.
>>1113567
Thank you so much very telling me. I appreciate it.
>>1113559
Nice revelation guy, somebody get Joe Rogan on the line.
>>1113574
Interesting, so Marcus Aurelius was grappling with nihilism.
>>1113574
Also, to be perfectly fair, that's Marcus Aurelius according to that translator. Every translation is inherently just an interpretation.
I have a new question. Did diversity benfit humanity or damaged?
>>1113596
Depends on what you mean by diversity. Some believe diversity is subversion of certain cultures in favor of others, with regards to the social or economic status of said cultures. This is, of course, a flawed system only meant to appease these groups, or those who feel guilty for them by proxy.
I believe that cultural exposure, with inquiries into the individual merits of every developed culture encountered can only be beneficial for humanity.
Personally, I have no problem with celebrations of foreign cultures, so long as we are reciprocated, and ours are celebrated as well.
>>1112274
>giving latria to it on grounds that it partakes of Christ's self
there isnt anything that says that it partakes on Christ's self.
He says we should honor The Cross (The True Cross, in which Christ was literally crucified) because it both represents and was sanctified by Christ. He doesnt mean the worship of the Cross as it is in itself, or the other crosses, but only as it represents Christ, to which the honor is given (in this case, latria or "relative latria").
Also, the Church Fathers held divine simplicity (how can you be a monotheist otherwise?), which may/may not be incompatible with Palamas' theology (which is why Constantine is hard pressed on discrediting the notion of Actus Purus, a way to reach the doctrine of divine simplicity)
>>1113606
Very smart you are. So what I learned that diversity gave different cultures. And being exposed to them benifits. But we must celebrate our culture as well.
Bumping for an answer on this >>1113272
>>1113622
>Also, the Church Fathers held divine simplicity (how can you be a monotheist otherwise?), which may/may not be incompatible with Palamas' theology (which is why Constantine is hard pressed on discrediting the notion of Actus Purus, a way to reach the doctrine of divine simplicity)
can you expand on this?
>>1113684
Do you have any hard evidence to indicate that they're forgeries? They don't contain any anachronisms, which are the general telltale for forgeries.
Do communion wafers taste good?
Or is actual bread used these days?
>>1113703
Papias lived a much closer time to the Gospel writers than the earliest references to Heraclitus lived to him.
Papias's account coincides very well with the Gospels themselves. Two contain the authorship, the Gospel of John (which also is the only one including Christ's entrusting his mother to John, something which was very personal and there were no others to see), and the Gospel of Luke (or rather Luke doesn't contain the authorship, but indicates it because wrote Acts and writes first person plural temporarily--if he were impersonating someone to lend credit to his account, it wouldn't be Luke, it would be an actual Apostle). What really puts the nail in coffin of the Q theory, is that it requires Mark to be the earliest Gospel other than Q, and to be the other common source used by Matthew and Luke, which is wrong: when Christ says it is not when goes in which defiles, but that which comes out, Mark 7:19 has the gloss explaining in saying this, Christ made all foods clean, something that was only universally accepted after the Council of Jerusalem; Matthew has no such gloss, indicating that it is the earliest Gospel, and predates the Council of Jerusalem. If Matthew were written after the Council of Jerusalem, and was using Mark as a source for this saying, surely it would have included this gloss.
cont
>>1113722
There is also another gloss, in Matthew 19:29 says those who leave mothers and brothers and wives and fathers and sisters and houses and fields for Christ's sake will receive a hundred times in the age to come; Mark 10: 29-30 says the same thing, but then adds a parenthetical gloss right after Christ says a hundredfold, saying "now" repeating what Christ just said, explaining "with persecutions", (as in you will lose these things in persecutions, maybe these things might even be doing the persecuting); then the parenthetical gloss ends, and Christ finishes "in age to come". Mark was clearly written after the persecution of Christians became intense, whereas Matthew was written before then. Rather than Matthew and Luke using Mark as a source, is make more sense to say Mark used Matthew and Luke as sources. Finally, Matthew was clearly written in Hebrew and translated (as Papias says), unlike the other Gospels, because it uses Hebrew syntax and tense; for instance, see the very Greek syntax of Mark 15:21: "And they compel passing a Simon [a passing Simon] of Cyrene, coming from country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, that [he might] carry the cross of his [Christ's]." This sort of syntax sounds natural in Greek (where inflection and declension almost completely determine grammatical relations), but in English or Hebrew, languages that rely heavily on syntax to express grammatical relations, it's chore to parse (and remember there was no punctuation, lowercase and uppercase, or even word spaces, in ancient times);
cont
>>1113725
Matthew 27:32, by contrast, reflects a Hebraic syntax: "Going forth and they found a man of Cyrene, named Simon: him they compelled to carry the cross of his [Christ's]." Here is another example, Mark 1:12: "And immediately the spirit him drives into the wilderness." Compare the Hebraic Matthew 4:1: "Then he, Jesus, was led into wilderness by the spirit." In Mark, the indirect object is adjacent to the object, which is quite normal in Greek, but generally not feasible in Hebrew.
FINIS
>>1113720
The bread used for Communion (which we get more of a taste of in the antidoron) is very good. It's homemade by parishioners. Some of the best bread I've ever tasted.
>>1113720
The wafers don't taste like anything, but we use real bread a few times a year and it's really good. Sweet and warm.
Remember to pray for your fellow lurkers and shitposters. Please, pray for my nofap success.
>>1113924
Please, give me an example of textual analysis which is any evidence toward this at all. The only evidence for this is from textual criticism, not analysis, and it is far from comprehensive.
>>1113935
Your right I mixed up my terms. define what you mean by comprehensive, and why that should keep us from drawing conclusions
>>1113706
>Do you have any hard evidence to indicate that they're forgeries? They don't contain any anachronisms, which are the general telltale for forgeries.
I was just asking you if you have the evidence regarding the composition of them which you provide for the bible and hammer other faiths on.
None of the posts you made bellow Actually answers the question of when these were composed. If these were later fabrications (which Im not saying they are) it would of course make sense that they align well.
>>1113722
>>1113725
>>1113728
Do you have any info on this or did you just assume it all?
>>1113488
>CE
edgy
>>1113517
>that pic
s a v e d
>>1113987
Not that anon, but where I'm from CE is the norm, using it is unintentional.
>>1113540
What kind of fucking translation is this? Holy shit.
>>1113531
>H
>R
>E
>>1113560
>>1112180
W-what about Muslims?
>>1114000
But they had religion, and that eventually became modern religion and thought in general?
>>1114008
Ok,seriously i do have a question.
What do Catholics,or rather Christians, believe Jesus did when he prayed to God.
Was he talking to himself? Or am I missing something?
Bumping for >>1113966
>>1112276
Yes, modernist muh feels protestants
>>1114021
Arius was right
>>1114021
Jesus is God.
He was praying to His Father in heaven who sent Him on Earth in the form of man.
>So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise. For the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing. And greater works than these will he show him, so that you may marvel. For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.
John 5:19-23
Jesus, along with the Holy Spirit, has always been part of the Triune God, He is eternal since He is of the same subtance and essence. His praying showed His dependence upon His Father in His humanity to carry out His Father's plan of redemption.
>Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Philippians 2:5-11
He was depicting how even in sinless humanity it is necessary to have a vital prayer life in order to do His Father’s will.
>God made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.
2 Corinthians 5:21
>>1114050
>Jesus is eternal
>Jesus is begotten
Pick one
>>1114057
What's your point?
>>1114063
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogen%C4%93s
>>1114073
so you're saying you're a polytheist? or that God has "illegitamate children?"
>>1114080
I'm saying that you don't understand the mystery of the Holy Trinity.
Btw, you should read Psalm 22 (of David) which is a Messianic prophecy which Jesus fulfilled.
>>1114050
If the father loves the son and is all powerful then couldn't he just like snap his fingers and have all mankind forgiven rather then letting Jesus suffer? And couldn't he just have sent a prophet like all those times before? And if prophets were a failed experiment then isn't he all knowing wouldn't he have known it all along? If so does he enjoy human suffering?
I do not mean to belittle any faith I just wanted to have these misconceptions cleared up. I know it really looks like I am leading a pro-Arius or pro-Muhammad arguement but I just have these questions in my mind.
>>1114097
Who is that in the pic?
Bumping for >>1113966. Do any other anons have info on this matter as well?
>>1114085
I'm Christian, not muslim
The problem is Jesus can't be both eternal and begotten, he can't be uncreated and have a beginning.
>>1114152
>I'm Christian
lol
>>1114165
really faggot
>>1114165
Here, let me quote 2 Corinthians 5:21
>God made him
>made
>>1114181
You are rejecting His divinity, you are an apostate.
>>1114186
What part of ''who sent Him on Earth'' don't you understand?
>>1114187
Point me to the verse where it says Christ is God
>>1114192
Are you the same pseudo-Christian shitposting in the ''/his/torical Jesus'' thread right now?
This triune God (or Trinity) began to allude to this aspect of His nature right in Genesis 1:26–27. There we read that “God said, ‘Let us make man in our image’ . . . God created man in His image.” Here God is a plural noun, said is in the third-person singular verb form, and we see both the plural pronoun our and the singular His referring to the same thing (God’s image). This is not horribly confused grammar. Rather, we are being taught, in a limited way, that God is a plurality in unity. We can’t say from this verse that He is a trinity, but God progressively reveals more about Himself in later Scriptures to bring us to that conclusion.
In Isaiah 48:12–16 we find the speaker in the passage describing himself as the Creator and yet saying that “the Lord God and His Spirit have sent Me.” This is further hinting at the doctrine of the trinity, which becomes very clear in the New Testament. There are many other Old Testament Scriptures that hint at the same idea.
In Matthew 28:18–20 Jesus command His disciples to baptize His followers in the name (singular) of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. John’s Gospel tells us that “the Word” is God who became man in Jesus Christ (John 1:1–3, 14). Jesus was fully man and fully God. Many other verses combine together to teach that God is triune.
As a start on a thorough discussion on this topic, the chart in pic related is an accumulation of many of the passages that show the deity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
>>1114192
You're a Jehovah's Witness apostate aren't you?
>>1114198
>Let us make man in our image
By the same logic, a number of popes and kings were "plurality in unity", since they referred to themselves in the same way.
>The Lord God and his spirit have sent me
Clearly an angel
>the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
This does not imply equality
>John 1:1-3
This is simply creation
>John1:14
The creation of Man
>>1114204
Jehovah's Witnesses are heretics.
>>1114227
Bait?
>>1114227
just lol
>>1114234
t. apostate
>>1114234
>btfo
Your post actually made me laugh. Sitll not sure if you're just baiting or actually clueless.
>>1114241
There's no shame in admitting defeat.
>>1114259
>defeat
You're biblically illiterate and are shitposting all over the place.
7/10
>>1114198
This + God is perfect and therefore unchanging = Jesus is eternal
I'm not sure why Christians act as though debate over the authorship of the gospels is something special to them. Have they never read about the debates surrounding the authorship of Homer's works? Or the debates surrounding the authorship of some of Shakespeare's works?
>>1113956
I mean textual criticism can hardly give conclusive proof that all of the Gospel were written "over time" (which conflicts with textual analysis, as the Gospels have very distinct styles). The most that can be reasonably asserted is the Gospels were mostly written, and a few things were added later on one or two of the Gospels, but even that isn't watertight. For instance, we find that most of the earliest copies of the Gospel of John don't have the episode where Christ saves the adulteress being stoned, so textual criticism often theorizes that it was added later by an author other than John--yet we find this story talked about in Papias, who predates the earliest copies we have (which are from the 4th Century, long after their origin is dated). We also have Saint Augustine, who said it was removed from many early copies because it offended the sensibility of some copyists. Papias's words certainly fit well with Saint Augustine's words, so it's very reasonable to assume that as an explanation as well, at least as reasonable as the secular explanation. Either way, stuff like this is far, far from enough to comprehensively prove each the Gospels weren't mostly written by the one person who is the commonly attributed author, in fact it's not even enough for us to remotely doubt that commonly attributed authorship, and so far there is nothing given that is good cause to doubt.
>>1115217
The debate about the authorship of Homer's works was closed decades ago, if you tried to use the logic of contemporary Gospel theorists on the Iliad or the Odyssey, you would be told your methodology is very dated.
Shakespeare's style is a lot more elaborate and his plotting is comparatively erratic, so it's not really comparable.
>>1115274
My point is that this kind of debate is nothing special. It's not part of some grand conspiracy to discredit your faith, and you should be welcoming skepticism with open arms if you truly value intellectual consistency.
>>1114192
Revelation 1:8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”
>>1114227
So are you.
>>1115338
It absolutely is. You will never see a born again Christians attacking the authors of the bible, only "liberal scholars".
>>1115362
Plenty of Christian bible scholars question the authorship of the gospels, this is self-evident in the fact that in the Anglo world, most Bible scholars are themselves Christians (most other people don't give enough of a shit about the Bible to bother).
Subjecting your faith to proper intellectual scrutiny is not an attack.
Also of course born agains don't typically do so, they typically are Biblical literalists and have a vested interest in not doing so.
>>1115338
I don't think it's a grand conspiracy, just a double-standard inherited as a legacy from the mindset of people like Bruno Bauer shaping secular scholarship of the Bible.
>>1115381
You still haven't proven that inane assertion.
>>1115380
If you're talking about stuff like the Jesus Seminary, these people are not Christians except culturally, they are like non-practicing Jews who study Jewish history and literature.
>>1115381
Also, it's really hilarious that you assume people are engaging in a double standard by automatically assuming miracles are impossible when your position is automatically assuming that the Bible is 100% true. Secular scholars are at least willing to admit when the bible gets historical details right.
>>1115380
In 99.9% of the cases, you would be correct.
When it comes to the bible, no.
Anyone who attacks the bible as a scholar is a "liberal scholar", which means anything from anti-theist to atheist to deist to agnostic.
