Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Sriram on April 02, 2017, 05:06:56 PM
-
Hi everyone,
A very interesting video about the tomb of Jesus at Jerusalem and the imminent uncovering of the rock on which Jesus is believed to have been laid.
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/23/travel/jesus-tomb-restoration-complete/index.html
May be of interest to some people here.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Can of worms, there! There are several potential candidates for the tomb of the Lord Jesus. Not that we need any of them, though.
-
Can of worms, there! There are several potential candidates for the tomb of the Lord Jesus. Not that we need any of them, though.
That's a thought. If there were more than one tomb then when they thought he had raised from the dead he was in fact laid out in another one.
-
It would be interesting if a body was found in the tomb which could be identified as belonging to Jesus. The implications of that would be HUGE where Christianity is concerned.
-
Floo; Have you actually been there? Had you have been there, you would see that your point is moot. Helena - Constantine's mum - went about digging up stuff and claiming them as relics with no basis whatsoever. She found enough bits of the 'true Cross' to provide decking for a cathedral; and the other claims are equally spurious. Whether or not the site was that of the Resurrection is simply unknowable. Similarly, did you know that there was a second candidate for Bethlehem - based on a second century Roman Christian site, rather than the more famous one we know today - thanks to Helena? We don't need either site, though.
-
She found enough bits of the 'true Cross' to provide decking for a cathedral
Protestant myths die hard, it seems. This particular one was invented by Martin Luther. If you were to put all the fragments together, however, all you would end up with is a part of a beam of wood. As for St. Helena, that's a matter of faith I suppose, but again it all boils down to Protestantism's inherent iconoclasm: it's almost gnostic.
-
Sorry, ad-o: Using modern methodology, there is nothing to substantiate Helena's claims - and much to be rather sceptical about, since she had a political agenda in supporting her son in his role as Emperor. She may or may not have converted - that's God's business, not ours - but the situation in the empire needed stability. After all, at the time Helena was being an amateur digger, her son was building Churches, endowing Mithras cult Temples, issuing coins with both Christian and pagan symbolism on them - in other words, veing a typical Roman warrior/politician and hedging his bets. The hagiology and history are confused.
-
As I said: almost gnostic. Rejecting anything physical, that is, anything one can touch with the hand or see with the eyes.
-
Floo; Have you actually been there? Had you have been there, you would see that your point is moot. Helena - Constantine's mum - went about digging up stuff and claiming them as relics with no basis whatsoever. She found enough bits of the 'true Cross' to provide decking for a cathedral; and the other claims are equally spurious. Whether or not the site was that of the Resurrection is simply unknowable. Similarly, did you know that there was a second candidate for Bethlehem - based on a second century Roman Christian site, rather than the more famous one we know today - thanks to Helena? We don't need either site, though.
I agree with you, I was just asking a hypothetical question.
-
As I said: almost gnostic. Rejecting anything physical, that is, anything one can touch with the hand or see with the eyes.
-
No.
Rejecting stuff that isn't important or in the New Testament.
-
-
No.
Rejecting stuff that isn't important or in the New Testament.
Jesus' tomb and cross are in the NT. Lose your bible?
-
Jesus' tomb and cross are in the NT. Lose your bible?
-
Nope.
Please show me where Scripture locartes them - and tells us to build whopping great churches over them?
-
-
Nope.
Please show me where Scripture locartes them - and tells us to build whopping great churches over them?
Tell us were Jesus says use Jacob's Cream Crackers for communion. This is the fallacy of sola scriptura and why it's a whopping great heresy.
-
This is the fallacy of sola scriptura and why it's a whopping great heresy.
How do you know it's a 'fallacy' and a heresy?
-
How do you know it's a 'fallacy' and a heresy?
Possibly it's a herefallacy?
-
How do you know it's a 'fallacy' and a heresy?
Because Protestantism is full of things not in the scriptures and many of its doctrines, such as the Trinity, which relies on the traditions it rejects.
-
Tell us were Jesus says use Jacob's Cream Crackers for communion. This is the fallacy of sola scriptura and why it's a whopping great heresy.
-
Ooops!
Jesus didn't ask us to use wafers, spoons, ornate vessals, robes, bells and incence at communion either.....did I miss that bit?
-
-
Ooops!
Jesus didn't ask us to use wafers, spoons, ornate vessals, robes, bells and incence at communion either.....did I miss that bit?
I didn't say he did but then we don't believe in sola scriptura. Scripture is just part of a much wider tradition.
-
Traditions change.
-
I didn't say he did but then we don't believe in sola scriptura. Scripture is just part of a much wider tradition.
Just because something is tradition doesn't mean it is right or good. Much of the Catholic tradition should be scrapped, imo.
-
Just because something is tradition doesn't mean it is right or good. Much of the Catholic tradition should be scrapped, imo.
I take it you mean Roman Catholic? Ad_o would argue that much of it already has been .
-
Both the Orthodox Church and the RCC are Catholic in origin aren't they?
-
Traditions change.
No they don't.
-
Both the Orthodox Church and the RCC are Catholic in origin aren't they?
The Orthodox Church does claim to be the Catholic Church.
-
I take it you mean Roman Catholic? Ad_o would argue that much of it already has been .
Indeed.
-
Both the Orthodox Church and the RCC are Catholic in origin aren't they?
Yes, (though in that sense all Christianity is from the same origin) but Ad_o would argue that much of the tradition has been lost in the RCC and that is part of its problems. Talking of them as if they are one church makes no sense.
-
Because Protestantism is full of things not in the scriptures and many of its doctrines, such as the Trinity, which relies on the traditions it rejects.
How do you know these 'traditions' and the scriptures are true? In addition, the scriptures aren't exactly clear - people disagree - so how do you decide what to believe?
-
The Orthodox Church does claim to be the Catholic Church.
It would, wouldn't it! ;D
-
It would, wouldn't it! ;D
What traditions do you think it should get rid of?
-
How do you know these 'traditions' and the scriptures are true? In addition, the scriptures aren't exactly clear - people disagree - so how do you decide what to believe?
Ultimately it is a matter of faith, of course, but what I have looked for always is continuity, the golden thread which goes back all the way to the Apostles. This is because the Church is visible.
-
ad,
Ultimately it is a matter of faith, of course, but what I have looked for always is continuity, the golden thread which goes back all the way to the Apostles. This is because the Church is visible.
Not sure about the "ultimately", but that's more honest than most here who claim reason or evidence for their beliefs. "Faith" seems to me to be a legitimate way to "true for me only" beliefs if that gives you comfort or provides a narrative that makes sense to you, though you seem to be dismissive of the different faiths of others that (presumably) have the same function for them. How so?
-
Just because something is tradition doesn't mean it is right or good. Much of the Catholic tradition should be scrapped, imo.
-
RC, I take it - since all mainstream churches regard ourselves as part of the 'one holy catholic church'.
-
ad,
Not sure about the "ultimately", but that's more honest than most here who claim reason or evidence for their beliefs. "Faith" seems to me to be a legitimate way to "true for me only" beliefs if that gives you comfort or provides a narrative that makes sense to you, though you seem to be dismissive of the different faiths of others that (presumably) have the same function for them. How so?
But if there is no continuity how can they claim to hold the apostolic faith? And how can someone who believes in sola scriptura, rejecting the tradition of the Church, use that same tradition in their understanding of the holy Trinity, for example? It makes no sense and it shows Protestantism to be false, impostors and an exercise in arbitrarianism.
-
Oh, look! The 'they're all heretics but me!" approach. Thank God niether Christ - nor the New Terstament - is so choosy!
-
ad,
But if there is no continuity how can they claim to hold the apostolic faith? And how can someone who believes in sola scriptura, rejecting the tradition of the Church, use that same tradition in their understanding of the holy Trinity, for example? It makes no sense and it shows Protestantism to be false, imposters.
A quote from Peter Ustinov (from memory): "Best friends are not always the ones you like the best; they're the ones who got there first". Why would they need to hold the apostolic faith when any other faith that they find meaningful would do just a well? Indeed why not faiths from different traditions entirely if they perform the same functions for those who have them?
I can see (just) that you might look askance at someone claiming the "true" apostolic faith when they jumped on the train part way along the journey, though they presumably would argue that their interpretation of it was closer to the intended truth of it than your own. That's the problem with mixing terms like "faith" and "true" - they're oil and water. Who's to say that one man's take on his faith belief has any better claim to objective truth than anyone else's?
That seems to me to be the contradiction here: "faith" is just, well, faith. You can have as many of those as there people to have them, and they're no-one's business but their own but there's no logical path to take you from that to "true" in any objective sense of the term. None in other words are more or less "true" than any of the others except in the heads of those who hold them, which is why incidentally theocracies pretty much always fail.
-
ad,
A quote from Peter Ustinov (from memory): "Best friends are not always the ones you like the best; they're the ones who got there first". Why would they need to hold the apostolic faith when any other faith that they find meaningful would do just a well? Indeed why not faiths from different traditions entirely if they perform the same functions for those who have them?
I can see (just) that you might look askance at someone claiming the "true" apostolic faith when they jumped on the train part way along the journey, though they presumably would argue that their interpretation of it was closer to the intended truth of it than your own. That's the problem with mixing terms like "faith" and "true" - they're oil and water. Who's to say that one man's take on his faith belief has any better claim to objective truth than anyone else's?
That seems to me to be the contradiction here: "faith" is just, well, faith. You can have as many of those as there people to have them, and they're no-one's business but their own but there's no logical path to take you from that to "true" in any objective sense of the term. None in other words are more or less "true" than any of the others except in the heads of those who hold them, which is why incidentally theocracies pretty much always fail.
Relativism. God help us! ::) A sure path to hell, if ever there was one.
-
Oh, look! The 'they're all heretics but me!" approach. Thank God niether Christ - nor the New Terstament - is so choosy!
Narrow is the path.
-
What traditions do you think it should get rid of?
Its crazy attitude to contraception should be done away with, as should its attitude to abortion. Women having an equal status to that of the male of the species would be a big step forward. Forced celibacy should be done away with. If serious crimes are revealed in the confessional, a priest should be obliged to inform the police. That will do for starters.
-
The Orthodox Church does claim to be the Catholic Church.
But not Roman Catholic. Careful, you'll confuse Sassy all over again (though I doubt she was ever unconfused).
-
ad,
Relativism. God help us! ::)
But faith beliefs are relativistic! That's the "faith" bit. If you want to demonstrate some kind of epistemic value for your faith over that of anyone else you'll need to break out of the straightjacket it gives you and into something that's investigable. "But that's my faith" isn't investigable - it's just an opinion, albeit often a strongly held or expressed one.
A sure path to hell, if ever there was one.
"Hell" being a conjecture from your personal faith that you want to over-privilege with meaning for other people too.
Do you see the problem here? You can have as much faith as you like about anything you like, but as soon as you assert someone else to be wrong for not agreeing with it you're stepping onto turf you're not equipped to engage with. What tools or methods would you suggest to demonstrate your rightness and their wrongness? Reason and logic are out because they negate the faith bit - so what else is there?
-
ad,
Narrow is the path.
...and strait is the gate.
-
AdO
Have you washed in the Holy Fire yet? ....... http://www.holyfire.org/eng/