Roman Catholic general?

File: 1492103161856.jpg (28KB, 403x349px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 403x349px

My only major quibble about the Catholic Church is the insistence on the perpetual virginity of Mary. I just don't buy it. That's all that's stopping me from being baptised.

>>2663776
How do you come to terms with the Trinity?

I can't go back to the faith because it makes no damn sense.

File: bad-analogies-700x438.jpg (90KB, 700x438px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 700x438px

>>2663791
"The Trinity is a mystery which cannot be comprehended by human reason, but is understood only through faith and is best confessed in the words of the Athanasian Creed which states that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confusing the Persons nor dividing the Substance, that we are compelled by the Christian truth to confess that each distinct Person is God and Lord, and that the deity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is One, equal in glory, co-equal in majesty."

>>2663776
Haha that's a real shame if it's true; you're so close to participation in the life eternal!

Do you have qualms about the plausibility of it? or is it the significance attached to it?

>>2663791
This is very very hard and of course no one can fully understand it. Expounding the doctrine of the trinity has been the subject of several massive books so it'll be hard to give a good answer haha. But anyways:

God is eternally and immutably God but in order to secure the remission of sins and light the way to eternal felicity, he absolutely *had* to assume mortality and everything that comes with it. God never stops being God and Christ never stops being God but for him to act as Mediator he is voluntarily constrained in certain ways and at certain points. (cf. the Father ... is greater than I). This is super complicated and the Holy Spirit is beyond my capacity to expound even inadequately on the fly so, sorry for the poor answer heh

>>2663831
>Do you have qualms about the plausibility of it?
Yeah that's basically it, I understand that there's been a lot of discussion about it and pretty convincing arguments on both sides but to me personally it just doesn't seem very likely.
>or is it the significance attached to it?
I feel like at times some elements of the Church are overly attached to Mary in what feels like a very superstitious and Pagan way, but as the mother of Jesus I feel she should be honored as highly as someone completely human can be honored.

>>2663831
You sound like an incredibly nasty person, hiding behind a mask of false charity.

Don't let morality and critical thinking block you from being a full time cheerleader for your team.

>>2663760
Catholics aren't Christian

Why did the Catholic Church throw its traditions into the garbage can?

One reason that orthodoxy is gaining a large following is the aesthetics of its temples, liturgy and chant. The Catholic Church had all that with the Latin mass and Gregorian chant, and it simply threw everything away in favor of warehouse-like temples and lame band music with gospel lyrics. It's mind-blogging!

File: image.jpg (40KB, 512x288px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 512x288px

Hello my fellow Catholics! Are you celebrating the holy sacrament of Negrus Feetus regularly? Reminder that you can celebrate it by washing, caressing, massaging, licking, kissing as well as sucking (in a non sexual way) the feet. Mary bless!

I'm a member of the church, my mother thought it'd be a good way to make sure I grew up with morals. I have some problems at certain points, mostly with stories in the Old Testament. The story of Noah messes with me a lot.

>>2663947
Catholics are disgusting people.

File: 40c48c92fc805d0b28b2e4fecc9406b2.jpg (22KB, 480x600px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 480x600px

>>2663947
In Hoc Signo Linges!

>>2663760
I was born and raised in the Church, and I still remain active in it.
Most of my friends are Catholic (or at least raised Catholic), so there's not really much conversation about it.
I think the biggest obstacle for me is that I'm kind of a lazy person. I like the quickest way from point A to point B. I'm at a pretty busy point in my life right now, so going to Mass every week, avoiding meat on Fridays, etc. seems like a lot of work with little tangible payoff. I want to be faithful, but there's a nagging little part of my brain that says "nah".
Saints: Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, Ignatius. Modern: Tolkien, George R.R. Martin.

>>2663776
Well, there's no mention in the Gospels, writings of the apostles, etc. that Mary and Joseph ever had any more children (or attempted to have more) after Jesus, and the Annunciation was presumably before their marriage was consummated. Therefore, it's perfectly logical to assume that she remained perpetually virigin.

>>2663791
Short answer: God doesn't have to play by the rules, He made them.

Long answer: It makes sense if you work back from the assumption of the hypostasis. Basically, the hypostasis is that Jesus had a distinct human and a distinct divine person and will, joined in hypostatic union in his body (as I like to put it: 100% God, 100% man, 200% awesome). There's a similar hypostasis between God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. All three are of the same essence, coexisted before time and creation, and are all the one God.

>>2663947
You can tell the real Christians on 4chan from the fake Christians by their reaction to this photo.

>>2664052
>Well, there's no mention in the Gospels, writings of the apostles, etc. that Mary and Joseph ever had any more children (or attempted to have more) after Jesus
Jesus very explicitly has siblings. Catholic doctrine re-imagines them as either cousins or children of a never mentioned earlier wife of Joseph to preserve Mary's perpetual virginity.

>>2664083

>Jesus very explicitly has siblings

Not really.

>>2664123
>“Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?
Matthew 13:55

>Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.
Mark 6:3

>>2664133

None of those say James Joseph Simon and Judas are Mary's children.

Brother is used explicitly, numerous times, referring to non-relatives throughout the Bible.

>“Jesus appeared to more than five hundred…brothers at the same time”

1 Cor. 15:6

Jesus is also the only one of those "brothers" to ever be referred to as Mary's son.

>>2664136
And yet, for the early church to even come up with the justification that these were Joseph's children from an earlier marriage, they must have understood that these brothers and sisters had some sort of closer association with Jesus family than metaphorical brothers mentioned elsewhere. Otherwise, we would speak of Joseph's hundreds of prior children, rather than just these four brothers and unnamed sisters.

Additionally, >>2664140 somehow jumped from "Jesus didn't have siblings" to "these siblings weren't necessarily from Mary." Which is fine, but where is this mention of Joseph's prior wife?

>>2664065
You're right, the fake "Christians" find no fault in it

>>2664163
No, obviously the reason certain fathers created such an excuse is because they had an unbiblical belief
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4QVFj4JY1k&

>>2664163

>And yet, for the early church to even come up with the justification that these were Joseph's children from an earlier marriage, they must have understood that these brothers and sisters had some sort of closer association with Jesus family than metaphorical brothers mentioned elsewhere.

Not necessarily, no.

>Which is fine, but where is this mention of Joseph's prior wife?

I don't think there's reason to assume she has to be mentioned.

File: IMG_20170413_200358.jpg (2MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3840x2160px

>born into it
>I'm from what used to be a majority Catholic country (now 50/50 with the filthy sorry protestant brothers) so it'd pretty normal
>My lack of self control
>Does Chesterton count?

>>2664182
>Not necessarily, no.
So where did the justification come from? If it was understood that these four brothers and unnamed sisters were simply metaphorical siblings who had no actual connection to Jesus' family, why mention them specifically and why assign them to Joseph's marriage at all? What makes these "brothers" special enough to have this tradition while the hundreds of other "brothers" are intuitively understood to be metaphorical?

>I don't think there's reason to assume she has to be mentioned.
But the authors are being extremely explicit, in your view. They mention Jesus being the son of Mary and them being the brothers and sisters of Jesus, but they don't directly mention Mary also being their mother, thus she isn't. But because the authors are being so exact, should they not also be exact about all these relations? Why suddenly become vague and never mention the mystery woman?

>>2664196

>So where did the justification come from?

I'm not sure this is even the actual position they've taken on it.

>should they not also be exact about all these relations?

No because they're not that important.

>>2663934
Because the things you mentioned appeal mostly to cultural conservatives who make up a minority of the populace.

Those people already tend to be church goers, the church wants to keep the masses in the church

>>2664206
>I'm not sure this is even the actual position they've taken on it.
It can be seen, for example, in the writings of Saint Jerome.

>No because they're not that important.
So why were they mentioned at all?

>>2664175
>When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. “Do you understand what I have done for you?” he asked them. “You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am. Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. Very truly I tell you, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them.

>>2663934
>One reason that orthodoxy is gaining a large following is the aesthetics of its temples, liturgy and chant.

I'm pretty skeptical of this "Orthodox fever" that some people here on 4chan and elsewhere like to talk about. I, for myself, haven't seen a really huge uptick in converts or public interest.

If anything, I see as many converts to Catholicism, if not more. It's all anecdotal, though.

>>2664234
Good thing about Protestantism: we can just throw out the books containing teachings we don't like.
Protestpros: 7
catlicks: -666

>>2664206
A Catholic dogma binding to the faithful, therefore capable of determining whether you go to heaven or hell, is "not that important"?

>>2664182
>I don't think there's reason to assume she has to be mentioned.
Come on. You're being farsical. An entire dogma is based around the supposed second wife of Joseph, and she doesn't even need to me mentioned anywhere? Does anyone buy this?

>>2664163
> Joseph's prior wife?
There was no prior wife. Joseph conceived of them through adultery, which is why God punished him by cuckolding him with a god-child. That's how it works; haven't you read Job?

>>2664234
Protip: "their" does not mean "invading heathens"

At this point I honestly doubt the sincerity of Catholics, whether Rey really believe the nonsense they claim I believe or they just learn to answer objections by heart. Anon sounds more like a lawyer than a true believer. "There's no murder if there's no murder weapon! Therefore my client is innocent!"

>>2664052
>He believes in both virgin birth AND pure hyopstasis.
Unless you take the Constantine way out, they're in conflict you dunce.

>>2664298
Heathens today, Christians tomorrow. If we behave like Christ, we'll draw others to Christ.

>>2664302
I mean where does it end? What if the pope declares tomorrow that there was a fourteenth apostle who was a transgender woman? Therefore it's possible to ordain woman priests and transgenderism is not a sin.
>But there's no mention of a fourteenth apostle
AHA! But there's also no mention that wasn't one. I mean it's not really important to mention him/her after all. But you must believe this in order to be a Catholic.

>>2664328
The Pope cannot contradict Christ's teachings, by virtue of the Holy Spirit's protection of the Church.

>>2664339
The pope is Antichrist

>>2664316
Christ didn't behave like a cuck, nor did He advise compromise or cuckoldry. The true gospel is sufficient to save those who are the called.

>>2664133
I've read somewhere that a better translation would be "brethren," but I don't know for sure.

The earliest Christians believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, I don't see why they should be disregarded.

leave mexico pls

>>2664395
The earliest Christians share far more beliefs in common with the Catholic/Orthodox/Coptic Churches than they do with pretty much any Protestant sect.

Protestants wanted to go back to Christianity's roots, but they're arguably the greatest innovators in the entire religion.

>>2664404
Even the biggest reformers believed it, I don't know where they get this.

>>2664404
>>2664395
It's difficult to say anything definitive about what "the early church" or "early Christians" believed, because most of that was declared heresy and suppressed by the emerging Cathodox church. Most of what we do know about them comes from polemical works against them from the Cathodox perspective.

>>2664428
>because most of that was declared heresy and suppressed by the emerging Cathodox church

That's simply not true.

>>2664440
Sure it is. What do you think Against Heresies details?

>>2664457
Against Heresies was written over a hundred years before Christianity was even legal
>>2664428
The Baur Hypothesis is a conspiracy theory, not a historical theory

>>2664457
There were heresies in the early Church, but the orthodox faith was there and was preserved. Correct belief was saved and incorrect belief was defeated.

>>2664370
That would be the black Pope, white Pope has been black Popes underling for 200 years now. That's couldn't be any more obvious with current Pope. Do most Catholics not even have a basic understanding of the largest order in their church? The history of the Jesuits borders on the obscene.

>>2664466
>Against Heresies was written over a hundred years before Christianity was even legal
Yes, which is why I mentioned the Cathodox church being "emerging" rather than "established."

>>2664468
>There were heresies in the early Church,
You mean "there were multiple sects of christianity, and the one that eventually won declared itself the sole legitimate one." And we saw how that worked out with the later Great Schism, where both the Catholic and Orthodox churches claim to be the sole preservers of correct belief and wait for incorrect belief to be defeated.

File: 00D46FF2000004B0-3510414-image-a-13_1458992200061.jpg (159KB, 962x769px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 962x769px

>>2664472
You don't seem to have much belief in Christ's preservation of his Church, friend.

>>2664472
>"there were multiple sects of christianity, and the one that eventually won declared itself the sole legitimate one."
That's a conspiracy theory, not a historical theory.

>>2664477
Bart Ehrman is a conspiracy theorist?

>>2664476
>his Church
Which one? The Catholic or the Orthodoxes? Proof? Or we could take a more metaphorical view and say the very existence of the Protestant churches means the "Catholic" mission has failed, and thus the correct faith was not preserved.

>>2664477
So if these sects did not exist, what exactly is Against Heresies about? It can't be about any real beliefs people held, because that would make it conspiracy theory. Does it detail hypothetical heresies people could potentially develop in some ill-defined future? Perhaps it is a budding work of fantasy fiction and intended only to portray a world with an alien culture completely unlike our own?

Why did the Christian emperors take so much time to try and force a single interpretation of Christianity if multiple interpretations did not exist? Whom did Julian invite back from exile, if we assume nobody held views that would now be considered heterodox or heretical?

>>2664488
Yep
>>2664494
>So if these sects did not exist, what exactly is Against Heresies about?
Gnostics. You'll notice we have actual evidence of their existence.
>Why did the Christian emperors take so much time to try and force a single interpretation of Christianity if multiple interpretations did not exist?
The only """interpretation""" the emperors contended with was Arianism, and that was younger than legalization.

>>2664477
Its what pretty much every historian on the subject who isn't closely affiliated with a sect of Christianity believes.

>>2664505
So people who are biased against Christianity?

Mary's perpetual virginity is a Greek meme, to make Mary look more holy than the pagan goddess Artemis, who also had the title Aeiparthenos. There isn't a single mention of it in the canonical scripture.

>>2664494
>the very existence of the Protestant churches means the "Catholic" mission has failed, and thus the correct faith was not preserved.

As long as the Church endures, the faith is preserved.

>>2664477
Uh arianism you dumb fucking nigger?

>>2664510
In the same why non-Mormon Egyptologists are bias against the claims of Joseph Smith

Everyone has biases, that particular idea has caught on because it survived peer review scrutiny with only conservative Christians objecting.

Catholics are quick to site history books when it comes to debating protestant ideas of early Christianity but the moment we turn to the origins of the church itself its all just speculation and bias. Which coincidentally is the same thing born again Christians say

>>2664503
>You'll notice we have actual evidence of their existence.
We have the best evidence of their existence, yes. For other sects (as much as Gnosticism can be lumped into a single sect) we have little evidence of their actual beliefs (hence >>2664428) but circumstantial evidence through polemic against them and now "non-canonical" gospels.
>The only """interpretation""" the emperors contended with was Arianism, and that was younger than legalization.
There was also controversy over the organization of "the" church and its administration, which remained until the schism solved it.

>>2664510
No, people who fail to have a pro-Christian bias.

>>2664510
Most historians of Christianity tend to be liberal Christians. You just cant reconcile critical study of it with the orthodoxy.

>>2664522
Arianism nearly destroyed Christianity, and died out from mass conversion, not persecution.
>>2664526
The hypothesis is based on the presupposition that Jesus did not rise from the dead, not on any evidence.
>>2664528
>we have little evidence of their actual beliefs
So we have no evidence of these other sects because all record of their existence was destroyed by the Christians? Go away you dumb conspiracy theorist

>>2664532
So if you do not hold the presupposition that Jesus did not rise from the dead, you are forbidden from academia? No Eusebians allowed, because our presupposition has already determined the nature of the evidence?

>>2664534
>So we have no evidence of these other sects because all record of their existence was destroyed by the Christians?
No. We have evidence of their existence from the non-canonical gospels (someone wrote them and someone believed in them, but they were retroactively declared non-canon later on) and from polemical works against them like Against Heresies. Their existence is known, what isn't known is what their exact, undistorted beliefs were, as their own writings from their own perspective rarely survive.

>>2664541
Accurate representation is integral to successful polemic.

>>2664551
Depends on your perspective. A Protestant would claim they accurately represent the Catholic practices of Mary and saint worship when arguing against them. A Catholic would claim that that is a mischaracterization.

>>2664476

based Pope Emeritus

>>2664534
>The hypothesis is based on the presupposition that Jesus did not rise from the dead, not on any evidence.

whether Jesus physically rose from the dead is not directly related to how the religion permutated five ten or a hundred years after the fact, nor does it establish which group of Christians then or now is closest to what he actually taught

>>2664557
And that latria-dulia distinction itself is argued over, it still requires accurate representation.
>>2664565
No, the presupposition that Jesus did not rise from the dead is necessary for the non-existence of Christian orthodoxy, since if Jesus rose from the dead and set things straight, then poured out His Spirit to keep things straight, how could such diversity exist? Though he did not know it, >>2664532 has already proven my point for me. There is a strict dichotomy here, either
A. The historian presupposes that Jesus did not rise from the dead and thus assumes the non-existence of orthodoxy, and thus is accepted as an unbiased scholar, or
B. The historian fails to presuppose that Jesus did not rise from the dead and thus assumes the existence of orthodoxy, in which case both them and their work is automatically discredited as being biased, apologetic pseudo-history.
It is a methodology in which the Christian is set up to fail, the non-Christian is correct automatically.

>>2664579
>And that latria-dulia distinction itself is argued over, it still requires accurate representation.
Not at all. This theoretical Protestant source would likely skip over the concept of latria and dulia entirely, instead focusing on prayer "to" Mary for example. It would be accurate insofar as the Rosary exists, but inaccurate as to how Catholics self perceive the action and the theology behind it.

Likewise, we can use Cathodox polemic against "heresy" to know that certain sects existed (though some may be lumped/split/etc.) and get a very vague sense of their beliefs, but we would not understand their particular theology and self perception.

>>2664579
>No, the presupposition that Jesus did not rise from the dead is necessary for the non-existence of Christian orthodoxy, since if Jesus rose from the dead and set things straight, then poured out His Spirit to keep things straight, how could such diversity exist?


You just added a ton of assumptions besides "Jesus rose from the dead" besides which your dichotomy is a false one. You could very easiliy argue there was an orthodoxy stemming from Jesus or the apostles. The reason this idea is not widely accepted is that it doesn't seem to conform to the events. Even the bible which attempts to present such a case is full of mentions of infighting by churches and even the apostles.

Nor does being Christian and researching early Christianity mean your work will automatically be dismissed. Most historians don't include little notes about their belief systems when they go to get something published, the work stands on its own merits

>>2664589
>No, the presupposition that Jesus did not rise from the dead is necessary for the non-existence of Christian orthodoxy, since if Jesus rose from the dead and set things straight, then poured out His Spirit to keep things straight, how could such diversity exist?


I'll add that by this same logic there should not be multiple sects today because the spirit should be keeping things straight.

Clearly this has not prevented break off sects from achieving wide popularity, why should it have been any different in the ancient world?

>>2664589

>No, the presupposition that Jesus did not rise from the dead is necessary for the non-existence of Christian orthodoxy, since if Jesus rose from the dead and set things straight, then poured out His Spirit to keep things straight, how could such diversity exist?

That depends on the interpretation. Is it literal or symbolic?

>>2664614

Meant>>2664579

>>2664589
As a Protestant who argues with Catholics regularly, you are mistaken, I always deal with the latria-dulia distinction.
>>2664594
There have been several books by expert historians since Baur published his work, refuting said work, and every time they were rebutted the Baurist was sure to mention that their opponent was a Christian. On top of that, this >>2664526 and this >>2664532 prove me right, since they include the position that conservative, orthodox Christians cannot do serious history, and thus dismiss automatically their work. But the presupposition that Jesus did not rise from the dead is not the relevant one, it is the presupposition feeding that one.
I hold supernaturalist presuppositions, and you hold naturalist presuppositions. That's the fountainhead, nothing else is relevant to any historical, scientific or otherwise disputes between us, since we interpret all evidence through that framework.

>>2664610
The obvious explanation is that these are heretics who broke off from the orthodox position.
>>2664614
You mean is it actual or mythical?

>>2664626

No, I meant literal or symbolic. Not everything in life is black-or-white fact or fiction.

In fact, such literalism is a very modern way of interpreting the Bible and had no precedent, either in early Christianity, or until very recently

>>2664621
>As a Protestant who argues with Catholics regularly, you are mistaken, I always deal with the latria-dulia distinction.
Arguing with Catholics is entirely separate from convincing a non-Catholic that Catholicism is incorrect. When arguing with someone directly, you must address the points they bring up, which is very different from writing whatever is convenient for your convincing argument. Besides, we have pretty direct evidence of inaccurate portrayals used to attempt to persuade. No Christian would say that Mary is part of the Trinity, yet this characterization is present in the Quran and was convincing to Muslims for a long time.

>>2664634
Show me a single orthodox Christian throughout all history that believed Jesus did not rise from the dead.
>>2664638
Muhammad was plainly extremely ignorant of Christianity, which makes sense considering he was illiterate and thus knew all his stories from around the campfire

>>2664643
>Muhammad was plainly extremely ignorant of Christianity, which makes sense considering he was illiterate and thus knew all his stories from around the campfire
The reasons for inaccuracy are not as important as its presence and success despite that. See >>2664551, which started this leg of the argument. If the Quran were our only source on Christianity we would have an extremely distorted view on it.

>>2664643

>Show me a single orthodox Christian throughout all history that believed Jesus did not rise from the dead.

Again, according to what interpretation?

>>2664646
You don't get it. Muhammad did not seek to misrepresent the trinity, quite the opposite, but he argued against a strawman because he didn't understand it. The reason this was effective for Muslims is because of the violent, expansionist nature of Islam, which kept them from actually presenting this to Christians. None of the early church fathers were illiterate barbarians, neither is Christianity a religion of conquest, so the analogy falls flat on its face.
>>2664657
You know fullwell what I meant, but don't worry, I already knew the literal interpretation is not a production of modernity, but the unanimous position until modernity.

>>2664665
>Muhammad did not seek to misrepresent the trinity, quite the opposite,
And I never accused Irenaeus of intentionally misrepresenting "heretics," merely that his work was almost certainly inaccurate as a result of inherent bias and desire to convince. Intentionality is completely irrelevant here.

File: Origen-vs-Ken-Ham.jpg (94KB, 620x696px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 620x696px

>>2664665

>You know fullwell what I meant, but don't worry, I already knew the literal interpretation is not a production of modernity, but the unanimous position until modernity

Time for a golden oldie

>>2664678
A desire to convince would move Irenaeus to accuracy
>>2664690
Sorry, but the topic was the resurrection, try again. Also, Origen was the only one to interpret creation in such a way, and it's part of what was condemned by other fathers.

>>2664703
>A desire to convince would move Irenaeus to accuracy
Did Mohammad not want to convince?

>>2664703

>Sorry, but the topic was the resurrection, try again.

No, the topic was its interpretation

>Also, Origen was the only one to interpret creation in such a way, and it's part of what was condemned by other fathers.

So what. It shows that, unlike what you claimed, biblical literalism certainly isn't unanimous, and has been disputed and discussed since the very beginning of Christianity

File: 1490634238113.jpg (94KB, 1200x787px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 1200x787px

>an actual, civil and informative religion thread

>>2664720
Not that guy, but, though your claim about full literalism being debated is true, I would not expect to find anyone in the early church who believed in a symbolic interpretation of the Gospel.

>>2664715
As I already pointed out, Muhammad, unlike Irenaeus, was an illiterate barbarian
>>2664720
>No, the topic was its interpretation
And what is the it we are interpreting again?
>It shows that, unlike what you claimed, biblical literalism certainly isn't unanimous, and has been disputed and discussed since the very beginning of Christianity
Apparently I wasn't clear enough. Show me a single orthodox Christian in all time who did not interpret the resurrection literally
Happy hunting

>>2664621
Your simply wrong, as long as its written in the proper style a Chirstiancan easily publish work, and I dare say Orthodox Christians have published alot of important work on this era.

Heck, at one time the consensus was Jesus didn't exist, but that was proven inaccurate. The idea that atheistic assumptions drive the field is wrong, since most historians are not atheists, its simply any event you argue happened has to be backed up by the material facts

Its not the fault of secularist the gospels do not appear to be written by people who knew Jesus, or that most of the books appear to be written by followers of Paul. That important passages appear to have been added in later. That "heresies" were endemic to early Christianity and were often as popular as "orthodox"

Unless you can come up with a reason why Christianity should be privileged it appears to follow the same developments that plague every other religion before and since

>>2663931
t. Rev John Johnson

File: 6a00d8341bffb053ef00e54f3cae4e8833-500wi.gif (123KB, 300x449px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 300x449px

>>2665763
Christianity should be privileged because its founder IS God, and he demonstrated that he IS God because he died and then rose from the dead.

That's the key. That's the hinge around which all of religious studies turn. If you are a Christian you believe that Christ did the impossible, and because he did the impossible all who follow him have license to interpret all of history, and all of Scripture, accordingly. They have before them an impossibility that is nonetheless complete fact.

Christ is Risen. Why do we need any other lens through which to interpret history? Faith should support all interpretations, because if study of history can support the idea that Christ is risen, then all of existence should be interpreted, or reinterpreted, through the lens of the Resurrection.

I hope you all fasted for 40 days this lenten season

>>2667618
>Christianity should be privileged because its founder IS God,

are you familiar with the term begging the question?

Christianity is based on faith. Almost all theologians hold that Christianities key teachings are matters of faith.

History deals only with what can be established through facts and logical extrapolations.

>>2667712
>Christianity is based on faith. Almost all theologians hold that Christianities key teachings are matters of faith.
>History deals only with what can be established through facts and logical extrapolations.
You just proved me point again, despite your objections in >>2665763

>>2664806
>As I already pointed out, Muhammad, unlike Irenaeus, was an illiterate barbarian
And I already pointed out why that isn't relevant to the basic concept of the inherent accuracy or inaccuracy of polemic. If you want to shift your argument to be "Irenaeus would not have been inaccurate" instead of "successful polemic requires accuracy" that is a separate conversation we can have, but going around in circles about this point in particular is not fruitful.

>>2667860
are you saying that Christians are incapable of working within that framework? I am pretty sure there are many catholic intellectuals who regularly publish work within that or a similar academic framework.

Last I check Catholic doctrine was that faith and reason are not in conflict

File: 1438370036081.jpg (207KB, 692x960px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 692x960px

How is it epistemologically justifiable to believe in something which requires a leap of faith? The Catholics claim that some of their beliefs can be established by reason, although that's very far from certain, but for the sake of argument I'll grant it. They go on to say that faith must "fill in the rest" - where reason cannot establish beliefs. How in the world is that justifiable?

>>2668126
it's not justifiable. that's the point. if you had evidence then it wouldn't be faith.

>>2664316
>He hasn't read the old testament
Maybe if they kill another couple million Christians they will get it out of their system right?

>>2668211
>Christians
>Reading the Old Testament for anything more than to mine for lines to quote out of context.
You're funny, but in a "laughing at the retarded kid's babbling" kind of funny.

>>2668216
>Christians are supposed to be cucks
no

>>2668049
You mean are Christians incapable of acting within the framework of naturalist presuppositions?
Yes, yes they are.

>>2668252
That might come to a surprise to the many scientists within the catholic church, some of whom are priests.

>>2663791
Come to terms with it the way arian and his followers did. By being threatened with excommunication by the emperor.