JWB, I definitely agree with you on that one. I've never truly accepted a religion myself, and it gets harder every day when there is rampant hypocrisy and ignorance inside the core of each religion I look at. Some of them want to refuse something exists, or that people can have relationships and ideals beyond what can fit inside a tiny little box.
Was Jesus Christ hung?
- Thread starter jonb
- Start date
JWB, I definitely agree with you on that one. I've never truly accepted a religion myself, and it gets harder every day when there is rampant hypocrisy and ignorance inside the core of each religion I look at. Some of them want to refuse something exists, or that people can have relationships and ideals beyond what can fit inside a tiny little box.
Why would you think that the descendants of JC have been debunked? Also, I hate to burst your bubble but the Roman Catholic Church is by no means the oldest practice of religion if that is what you were indeed referring to. If you were referring to the oldest sect of Christianity, I would think that the Judeo-Christian are a bit more likely to hold that title. Why rely on the Vatican for the truth? It has been corrupt and dysfunctional for hundreds of years. Last but not least, I wish no one ill will but why would I pray for someone who believes that I am an abomination to all of the human race? Call me crazy, but I just don't get it.
[post=286100]Quoted post[/post]
[/b][/quote]i stand correted jeepwrangerboi----the Roman Catholic Church is the oldest ACTIVELY PRACTICED religion of all other religions. sorry for the mistake.
also, why wouldnt you pray for someone that didnt believe in you? are u only selective about who you pray for? this is what i was referring to in an earlier post about 'selective' beliefs in religion. if someone wishes u ill will you should pray for that person (or group) the moreso.
Where is YOUR PROVE that JC has decendants?
Personally, I believe that there is a god, or some form out there that is beyond comprehension. I doubt very much that life could have started from random protein fragments without help.
Having said that, Roman Catholicism is probably done in by Judaism. They might have been around just a bit longer than 2000 years, so don't forget them. (Otherwise they might come in at night and eat your babies or something. and yes, that was a joke for those that might have actually taken that seriously)
jeepwranglerboi
Experimental Member
i stand correted jeepwrangerboi----the Roman Catholic Church is the oldest ACTIVELY PRACTICED religion of all other religions. sorry for the mistake.
also, why wouldnt you pray for someone that didnt believe in you? are u only selective about who you pray for? this is what i was referring to in an earlier post about 'selective' beliefs in religion. if someone wishes u ill will you should pray for that person (or group) the moreso.
Where is YOUR PROVE that JC has decendants?
[post=286107]Quoted post[/post]
[/b][/quote]Roman Catholicism is not the oldest practiced religion. The Jewish faith is older not to mention the fact that many people still follow Pagan beliefs. As for the prayers, you are correct. I should pray for him and for every other close minded person. Where is your proof that he doesn't? Jesus was a Jew. Jewish males married and had children. Certainly Mary and Joseph had children together. The Bible skips from his childhood to about 30 years later. What do you think Jesus did in that time? Well, more than likely he studied The Kabbalah a Jewish Mysticism, which was standard. He also would have married and probably had children. I see no point in discussing this with you because you are going to believe what you believe and see only what it is you want to see. If you took a moment to step back out of what it is you have 'known' your whole life and questioned it you could perhaps have a better understanding and faith for your religious beliefs.
- jonb,
Yeah, well, if we believe everything the Church has ever said, Jesus must've been better-hung than most guys here: Nine churches have claimed to possess Jesus' foreskin, while 17th-century theologian Leo Allatius claimed that it rose along with Jesus and became the rings of Saturn. Since the turn of the century, relics in general and Holy Foreskins in particular seem to be "phasing out" of Christianity.
Other churches have claimed to possess his hair, blood, fingernails, and umbilicus, along with Mary's breast milk.
Other churches have claimed to possess his hair, blood, fingernails, and umbilicus, along with Mary's breast milk.
Relics phasing out? every Catholic alter has a relic of a cannonised saint in it. it is on top in the center of the alter. i live by Notre Dame University and dthe Basilicia on campus has an entire room full of relics (and even a relic of the cross JC was crucified on). Relics phasing out? Perhaps they are just hard to come by. i possess a 2nd rate relic of St. Lucy for healing the sick.
1st rate being something of the person, 2nd rate something the person wore, 3rd rate something close to the person, 4th rate something the person touched and so on.
the rest of what you said had me lmao...
I can't go along with that. The hierarchy of the Church was indeed corrupt during the Middle Ages and Renaissance. After the Protestant Reformation, the Church stepped back and took a look at itself and realised that the Church was no longer fulfilling its purpose. The Councils of Vatican I and Vatican II have cleared away a lot of the negative baggage that people had associated with the Catholic Church. It is one of the most tolerant Christian religions alive today. The Church has come to realize that religion's mission is to comfort its followers and aid them in their search for God. The Church no longer espouses that you must be Christian, let along Catholic, in order to attain spiritual salvation. The Church now shares closer relationships with Judaism and Islam than ever before.
Oh, and the Pope doesn't believe we're abominations: the new Catholic catechism reaffirms that homosexuals are among the children of God and are due the respect afforded to all those created in the image of God. Our sexuality doesn't diminish our worth in the eyes of God, so the Church has declared that it is immoral for anyone to cast aspersions on homosexuals. Even more immoral is passing judgment.
The modern Church is more of a cool institution than people realize, and I am praying for the Pope.
One more piece of Scriptural evidence for the marriage of Jesus: we know that Jesus was a rabbi and was addressed as such by the apostles. In the First Century A. D., the age of the Sadducees and Pharisees, the rules of the Mishnah were followed rigorously, even to extremes. It is specifically stated in Mishnaic Law that an unmarried man is forbidden to teach as a rabbi. The Sadducees and Scribes would never have allowed Him to teach the Torah in the Temple as the Gospels tell us he did. And many orthodox Catholic theologians today feel that Jesus must have been married. The canonical Gospels don't affirm it explicitly, but neither do they deny it.
Not really. Worldwide, there are about twice as many Catholics as Protestants. On a global scale, the Eastern Orthodox congregation outnumbers the Protestants. Those numbers are not reflected in the US population. In the States, more people are Protestants, but if you break down the Protestant denominations individually, the largest Protestant group in the US is comprised of the Baptists. There are more American Catholics than American Baptists.
jeepwranglerboi
Experimental Member
I can't go along with that. The hierarchy of the Church was indeed corrupt during the Middle Ages and Renaissance. After the Protestant Reformation, the Church stepped back and took a look at itself and realised that the Church was no longer fulfilling its purpose. The Councils of Vatican I and Vatican II have cleared away a lot of the negative baggage that people had associated with the Catholic Church. It is one of the most tolerant Christian religions alive today. The Church has come to realize that religion's mission is to comfort its followers and aid them in their search for God. The Church no longer espouses that you must be Christian, let along Catholic, in order to attain spiritual salvation. The Church now shares closer relationships with Judaism and Islam than ever before.
Oh, and the Pope doesn't believe we're abominations: the new Catholic catechism reaffirms that homosexuals are among the children of God and are due the respect afforded to all those created in the image of God. Our sexuality doesn't diminish our worth in the eyes of God, so the Church has declared that it is immoral for anyone to cast aspersions on homosexuals. Even more immoral is passing judgment.
The modern Church is more of a cool institution than people realize, and I am praying for the Pope.
One more piece of Scriptural evidence for the marriage of Jesus: we know that Jesus was a rabbi and was addressed as such by the apostles. In the First Century A. D., the age of the Sadducees and Pharisees, the rules of the Mishnah were followed rigorously, even to extremes. It is specifically stated in Mishnaic Law that an unmarried man is forbidden to teach as a rabbi. The Sadducees and Scribes would never have allowed Him to teach the Torah in the Temple as the Gospels tell us he did. And many orthodox Catholic theologians today feel that Jesus must have been married. The canonical Gospels don't affirm it explicitly, but neither do they deny it.
[post=286188]Quoted post[/post]
[/b][/quote]Thanks for that info. That is really wonderful to hear. I can always be sure to learn something from you especially when it comes to religion. I am of course not opposed to the Roman Catholic Church (hello, I am part Italian!
and I hope that I didn't come across that way. I feel a bit ignorant now but I am grateful for your enlightenment.Well, after all, I was in the seminary for some time, and there was a lot of emphasis on ecclesiastical history. We learned what Palestine and the Roman Empire were like in Jesus' time, how that culture influenced His teaching, and how He must have lived in that context. How can one understand the religion if he knows nothing about its founder? Sure, the message is the important part, but it's important to realise what external factors made those teachings especially relevant during His time as well as how they apply to us today.
Is this tongue-in-cheek?
Quid about the far more elaborate torture technology developed over the centuries by the churches founded in his name? How many men and women died a far more excruciating death for "heresy" or simply asking candid questions about the screamingly deranged superstitions that comprise that incoherent after-the-fact collection of hearsay?
As for JC's endowment, the OP presumably only wanted attention, which he obviously got.
