A Caste System for Christians

assyroid homager tobaccoism railroadish kor bicorporal medusiferous triality
http://www.sentex.net/~datanguayh/games/ >David Tanguay's Game Reviews
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08284a.htm

I agree with everything you had to say in this article. It all comes down to biblical literacy, biblical authenticity, and how we view the bible. If its inspired by God, lets pay attention and follow it. If its not inspired by God, "let us drink and be merry for tomorrow we die." I wonder how one can read the scriptures and not see that God ultimately has one people, one church, one true Israel that it is full of those from every nation, tribe, and tongue. I have never read of "denominations" in heaven. Do we honestly, those of us who have read at least portions of the New Testament, believe that Christ is concerned what our denomination is? No. Not at all.

"But was Paul talking about raising the words and deeds of Jesus (a realistic outcome) or raising the physical body that had no place to go ( Heaven is a spirit state as per Aquinas and JPII)???????"
Concerned The Christian Now Liberated

Prior to the passage where St. Paul says that Christianity is futile if Jesus is not raised from the dead, he recorded as evidence these witnesses for the physical appearance of Jesus and the empty tomb:

"3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born."
1 Corinthians 15:3 - 9

Why would the phrase "he appeared" be used five times in this passage if all that St. Paul thought appeared were "words and actions"?

Where would the story come from where St. Thomas is reported to say that he would not believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus unless he put his finger where the nails were? When the risen Jesus invited him to do just that, he apparently refrained with the astonished confession: "My Lord and my God!"

Were first Century Jews, including a group of hard-bitten fishermen, likely to follow a feel-good sensation, many to the death? Surely they required something more substantive?

Heaven may be a spirit state, but the immortal resurrected bodies of the dead and the living promised in the new heaven and earth to be established at the reappearing of Jesus will need an environment suitable to that bodily state. N T Wright frequently says: "Heaven is important, but its not the end of the world!" The new creation will share the renewal that all God's people enjoy at the resurrection.

St. Paul affirms:

"19 The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God." Romans 8:19 - 21

If we cast aside the primary references of the OT and NT, where do we go for a Christianity worth dying for?

GKC,

I will.

Bill Lang wrote:

"Jim, I'm talking about authority. You can come to salvation by God touching your heart in the middle of the desert. You can also be saved as a member of the Holy Hossana church, but that church is not the actual organization Jesus gave his authority to even though the members are spiritualy of his church."

Jesus didn't give authority to any organization. The apostles were the first disciples of Jesus, and therefore the first pastors of "the church", which is the body of all believers. The "authority" the apostles were given was to spread the gospel, make more disciples, baptize believers, and the special abilities to heal and perform miracles. If these "authorities" were truly being passed down through the ages to bishops and popes, then wouldn't we still be seeing miracles being performed?

My point is that Jesus didn't give special authority to a group or organization to keep for themselves and pass down. He taught truth to people who chose to believe, and commissioned them to pass this truth on. A believer becomes a part of the body of Christ because Christ enters their heart, not because someone says they can join their church.

Liberated,

No, I haven't attended all the debates, although that would be enjoyable.

Second of all, since we have sparred on this board several times, I would hope that you would already know my response to your reference to Reimarus.

You arrive at your conclusions because you have adopted the enlightenment philosophical worldview which 1) "de-Judaizes Jesus and his message 2) is biased toward a closed universe 3) and distrusts the church and organized religion in general (which I can remotely understand since you have referred to the church in negative terms in previous posts.)

Perhaps my advantage (which I recognize more fully thanks to being a participant on this message board) is that I have personally seen over the course of my lifetime a consistent congruency between the orthodox beliefs of my church (and no, we're not "fundamentalist bible thumpers" as you have labeled me for my citations of two verses, far from it!) and the authentic witness and outreach of my church in bringing healing and wholeness to our community and world. And one more thing - a deconstucted gospel will not lead a church to do the things our church has done over our 200 year history.

Take it for what it's worth.

GK

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated:
GKC,

I assumed you then have read about or attended all the debates between Professors Crossan and Wright??

One of the debates has been published in book form as edited by R.B. Stewart, The Resurrection of Jesus, Crossan and Wright in Dialogue, http://www.amazon.com/.

One excerpt from Stewart's comments:

"Reimarus (1774-1778) posits that Jesus became sidetracked by embracing a political position, sought to force God's hand and that he died alone deserted by his disciples. What began as a call for repentance ended up as a misguided attempt to usher in the earthly political kingdom of God. After Jesus' failure and death, his disciples stole his body and declared his resurrection in order to maintain their financial security and ensure themselves some standing."

Liberated,

First of all, I would need to know how many debates they have had together to answer that question and secondly, why would you assume such a thing?

And since you and I have sparred quite frequently on this board, you know fully well the reasons why I reject the deconstruction of the biblical narrative (particularly the gospels & New Testament in general)which doesn't take seriously the Christian faith as it related to the Jewish tradition and is imprisoned by an enlightement philosophical worldview.

Do you have a good conspiracy theory about JFK's assination attempt too?

EB,

You noted:

"St. Paul thought Christianity has no value without it!"

"17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men." 1 Corinthians 15:17 - 19

But was Paul talking about raising the words and deeds of Jesus (a realistic outcome) or raising the physical body that had no place to go ( Heaven is a spirit state as per Aquinas and JPII)???????

http://eternal-word.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2HEAVN.HTM

GKC,

I assumed you then have read about or attended all the debates between Professors Crossan and Wright??

One of the debates has been published in book form as edited by R.B. Stewart, The Resurrection of Jesus, Crossan and Wright in Dialogue, http://www.amazon.com/.

One excerpt from Stewart's comments:

"Reimarus (1774-1778) posits that Jesus became sidetracked by embracing a political position, sought to force God's hand and that he died alone deserted by his disciples. What began as a call for repentance ended up as a misguided attempt to usher in the earthly political kingdom of God. After Jesus' failure and death, his disciples stole his body and declared his resurrection in order to maintain their financial security and ensure themselves some standing."

Dave:
GK,

I take it from the content of the posts of your's that I've read thus far that you are either 1) an avid reader of NT Wright and agree with him on many of his points or 2) you're really NT Wright disguising yourself as GK Chesterton. Would this be a correct assessment?

Cheers,
Dave

Dave,

Actually, I'm a Jesus Seminar scholar. :)

Yes, #1. Do I come across that obvious? What I most appreciate about Dr. Wright is his tremendous ability to articulate the historic faith in a day and age when so many churches and church leaders have failed to do so.

I am part of the United Methodist Church which holds to the historic faith (ie - bodily resurrection, renewed creation, etc. although we are also known to be across the board on a lot of different theological topics) It's dissapointing to me that for a lot of people, they believe that the majority of what Dr. Wright is saying is somehow "new stuff" which leads people outside of the church to be suspicious of him since they think he has an ulterior motive.

What's also dissapointing is to see how many people (in the church & outside the church) have adopted the body/soul split when adopting such a philosophy makes the biblical story difficult to understand.

And last but not least, it's so dissapointing to me to read how many people have been hurt by the church which makes me even more grateful that I was brought up in a healthy, functional, and vital congregation and am part of one today.

Thanks for asking Dave. Tell me a little of your story.

GK,

I take it from the content of the posts of your's that I've read thus far that you are either 1) an avid reader of NT Wright and agree with him on many of his points or 2) you're really NT Wright disguising yourself as GK Chesterton. Would this be a correct assessment?

Cheers,
Dave

GK,

I take it from the content of your posts that I've read that you're either 1) an avid NT Wright reader, like myself, or 2) you're really NT Wright deciding to use GK Chesterton's name as your psuedonym. Would this be a correct assessment?

Cheers,
Dave

There is an irony in a church that finds its historical origin in denying RC ecclesiology then claiming that the RC Church is being arrogant in not agreeing.

There is an irony in a church that finds its historical origin in denying RC ecclesiology then claiming that the RC Church is being arrogant in not agreeing.

Constantine didn't care how the Church ruled as long as they stayed united and didn't cause problems for his empire.

"Check out this guy Jesus from the 1st century. Some say he did."

Could be the hinge of Human history?

St. Paul thought Christianity has no value without it!

"17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men." 1 Corinthians 15:17 - 19

"Check out this guy Jesus from the 1st century. Some say he did."

Could be the hinge of Human history?

St. Paul thought Christianity has no value without it!

"17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men." 1 Corinthians 15:17 - 19

Paganplace:

"I'm not afraid to die (I'm sixty-nine) and I'm certainly not pondering what happens after death, since no one in world history has ever come back-isn't that strange? "

Some might beg to differ on this point. ;)"

Check out this guy Jesus from the 1st century. Some say he did.

Hey, Arthur:

"I'm not afraid to die (I'm sixty-nine) and I'm certainly not pondering what happens after death, since no one in world history has ever come back-isn't that strange? "

Some might beg to differ on this point. ;)

Ok, I appreciate the people who take the time to express their points of view. I am not a theologian, biblical scholar, or a prophet, but I must say that we must remember that we are not reading a direct quote from Benedict, but an opinion from another person. I am a Southern Baptist youth minister who tries to use some common sense when he reads an article. I want to express that those of you who don't believe in the entire story of Jesus and his resurrection, or if you only believe in 30% of the biblical accounts, please don't quote or mention the bible as a cited source. If you are going to use the bible as a source to prove a claim, then believe in all of it. If you only believe in part of scripture and not the rest, then don't believe in it at all. Paul says that "All Scripture is God-breathed (inspired by God) and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness," 2Tim 3: 16. I believe in the inerrancy of scripture and the truthfullness of God's word. For those of you who believe that there is more than one way to God I will tell you what Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Jesus is the only way to salvation and to know God. The Bible never claims that there is more than one way to God. If you believe in the Bible and still make that claim I challenge you to find scripture that proves otherwise. I am not bashing anyone, but I am just trying to argue my side of the equation. I do appreciate the arguments on this site though.

Thanks!

I'd like to add a few thoughts to this topic of the canonization of the books of the Bible (of course there are different numbers of biblical books for Roman Catholic and most non-Roman Catholic traditions.)

For some reason, BGone acts like he's the only one who knows that the biblical writers actually used outside sources in their oral and written traditions. Yes, most intelligent people know this to be the case, so let's move on. BGone assumes that unless a faith is totally original without any outside reference points, it must be a hoax.

The real issue is how a faith tradition puts those reference points together within the context of the particular history of the faith tradition in question (for example, Christianity.)

The biblical canon did not happen overnight just like laws in our country that get passed generally do not get passed without meeting qualifications and withstanding several debates over time.

The big qualification for which biblical books needed in order to make the final canon had to do with continuity with Israel's history as a narrative story that culminated in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. When one reads the New Testament books with this in mind, it's easy to pick up on the Hebrew scriptures and overall story of God's love for the world and desire to redeem the world. This is why the Gnostic gospels failed to make the cut. Instead of being part of Israel's story, they offer short sayings that don't connect with the bigger picture of God's love for the world.

Since I don't want to make this post too long, the main point here is that the canonization process was happening long before Athanasius named the final list of books and long before Constantine's involvement (although Liberated, you are certainly right in posting that the canonization was finalized under Constantantine's reign.)

Even if I wasn't a Christian, I wouldn't buy the conspiracy theory that the final list of biblical books was all about power and church control. There's way too much evidence that this process was going on a long time before Constantine and it's no surprise whatsoever that these books comprise the Christian scriptures.

BGONE,

Josephus was a Jewish/Roman historian/reporter. He witnessed much if not all of what he wrote about.

Bill Lang,

I do believe it was Constantine who made the final decision as to what books went into the NT not the Church fathers. The history is a bit clouded but see http://gbgm-umc.org/UMW/bible/cea.stm for added information.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated:

I must protest your double standard Concerned. Where are the references?????

Josephus writes all that garbage without a single source for it. You're not going around quoting things without references. Josephus obviously made that all up or was he working on documents that originated in Egypt?

Did you notice that someone gave you references for those "great faith" damning pictures at http://www.hoax-buster.org The Bible is a proved hoax and the proof has references while the Bible only has proof it's a hoax for it's references.

The Bible had no references until Bill Hunt came along and found them. Josephus needs to hear from you that referenceless fiction writer. Time to get Liberated, Concerned. Oh yeah, you're just whistling past the grave yard without them references.

Jim, I'm talking about authority. You can come to salvation by God touching your heart in the middle of the desert. You can also be saved as a member of the Holy Hossana church, but that church is not the actual organization Jesus gave his authority to even though the members are spiritualy of his church.

Concerned, I could post many sites saying the opposite. The Church that wrote those letters is the same church that decided which one were valid and which ones weren't. God guided the church in writting them and in compiling them. Some where ruled bogus and others while cherished weren't added to the bible.

Bill wrote:

"TJ, you probably have never read of Apostolic succession. The Catholic Church has the unbroken line of the laying on of hands granting the authority Jesus gave the Apostles, who passed it on to the next generation and so on. Only these Bishops and their ordained priests have the authority to consecrate the bread and wine, thus transfiguring them into Jesus' body blood soul and divinity. That is why Catholics have Eucharist and others have bread and wine{or grape juice}. This same Apostolic succession is why the Ctholic Church is the one true Church and others are Christian communities!"

I'm not sure what, if anything, this has to do with the Catholic Church being the "true" church. If "by grace you have been saved through faith", then what does the authority of Bishops and ordained priests have to do with it? We don't receive salvation by being touched by some church clergy...

Is it possible that, where the OT & NT scriptures are concerned, you arrive at an estimate of their historical and spiritual integrity based upon pre-suppositions? If you are inclined to suspicion, then your research will uncover difficulties. If you start with some degree of trust, then your research will turn up supporting evidence.

If I choose to believe that Julius Caesar is no more than a fictional character in one of Shakespeare's great dramas, then the well of evidence will return the gaze of my own scepticism.

In this regard Richard B. Hays delivered an address to the Society for Biblical Literature in 1996 entitled "Salvation by Trust? Reading the Bible Faithfully". He contrasts the hermeneutic of suspicion with the hermeneutic of trust in a way that apparently was well-received by a diversity of biblical scholars.

See www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1

If that does not work search for the February 26, 1997, issue of The Christian Century, pp, 218-223.

Regarding the historicity of the New Testament, I would recommend the following website which is a dialogue of New Testament scholars representing a variety of perspectives:

http://www.ntgateway.com/xtalk/conversation.html

Et Al,

Interested in Josephus on Jesus? See http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissar24.htm

For all of the writings of Josephus, see
http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/josephus.html

Et Al,

For those interested in the early Christian writings, date and time of the gospels, epistles etc., see
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

an excerpt:

30-60 CE Passion Narrative
40-80 Lost Sayings Gospel Q
50-60 1 Thessalonians
50-60 Philippians
50-60 Galatians
50-60 1 Corinthians
50-60 2 Corinthians
50-60 Romans
50-60 Philemon
50-80 Colossians
50-90 Signs Gospel
50-95 Book of Hebrews
50-120 Didache
50-140 Gospel of Thomas
50-140 Oxyrhynchus 1224 Gospel
50-200 Sophia of Jesus Christ
65-80 Gospel of Mark
70-100 Epistle of James
70-120 Egerton Gospel
70-160 Gospel of Peter
70-160 Secret Mark
70-200 Fayyum Fragment
70-200 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
73-200 Mara Bar Serapion
80-100 2 Thessalonians
80-100 Ephesians
80-100 Gospel of Matthew

For the references to Professor Crossan's background information used to write his book, The Historical Jesus, see

http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan1.rtf

Et Al,

For those interested in the conclusions of Father Edward Schillebeeckx, the famous contemporary Catholic theologian, see ff. From Schillebeeckx, Church: The Human Story of God,
Crossroad, 1993, (softcover)

e.g. p. 91

"Christians must give up a perverse, unhealthy and inhuman doctrine of predestination without in so doing making God the great scapegoat of history" .

"Nothing is determined in advance: in
nature there is chance and determinism; in the world of human activity there is possibility of free choices. Therefore the historical future is not known even to God; otherwise we
and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women.

From Albert Schweitzer,

"In 1906, the great philosopher, organist and humanitarian Albert Schweitzer wrote his monumental The Quest of the Historical Jesus (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998, $19.95). Schweitzer spent hundreds of pages demonstrating how the historicity of Jesus was laboriously constructed by generations of 19th-century French and German scholars. At the end, however, Schweitzer depicts a mystic vision of Christ that shows as dramatically as possible how belief may have little to do with history or historical scholarship."

Et Al,

For those interested in books about the historical Jesus, see http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

For what Conservative Jews say about the mytical NT, see http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0401torah.asp

Bill Lang,

Carefully read my comments. When I cite history or statistics, I typically give references. The references are not always complete, since the On Faith "blog masters" only allow two net references per commentary.

In the next five offerings, I will give ten references that you should peruse.

Part 1:

For those interested in an analysis of sayings and ways of the historical Jesus where said analysis, based on the number of scriptural attestations and the stratum or time period of their "recording", separates the actual utterances of Jesus from the embellishments and fiction, see http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan1.rtf and http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf

Every idle word? He is the Lord of all people, even those of you who do not believe. Every knee will bow at that time in the future when the books are opened. My prayer that I know is heard, is that those of you who do not believe will continue to be given opportunities to believe in this wonderful God who loves you and did indeed send his only son to pay for you.

Bless you all with that peace that cannot be clouded nor taken away with mere words.

BGONE: In the context of a democracy, all citizens and voters are "kings"; presidents and ministers are elected to serve, not to rule, which makes them servants, not kings.
In that context, "king of kings" can only mean someone who elects all men or who makes all men elect.

Concerned, look at any poll taken on how many go to church and what things they believe. Coming from a person that never gives supporting evidences for their comments, you ask for a lot of proofs{which you ignore any way}!

Bill,

References supporting your comments???

There are thousands and perhaps millions of RC's that would ingnore the popes and would welcome sharing of Eucharist with Anglicans,...but they never go to church themselves and don't know what Eucherist is in many cases.

"Happily, there are thousands, perhaps millions, of RCs who cheerfully ignore all this and establish excellent relationships at all levels -- including eucharistic hospitality -- with Anglicans and many other denominations."

Perhaps, in answer to our Lord's prayer?

"20 "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their [the Apostles'] message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23 I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me."

Gospel of St. John 17

BGone:
"Good shootin' GK. I see you've eliminated hell from your faith."

And this might be a nitpicky thing BGone, but for crying out loud, read the post a little more carefully. OK, just for you, I'll go back and copy and paste. But only this once...

GK's Response to the Hell Question BGONE ignored which totally surprises GK since most of BGONE's posts are fixated on this topic for some twisted reason:

"Actually, I think people spend way too much time talking about hell (especially the Medieval church theologians) but in the grand scheme of things, the scriptures (more specifically, Jesus) saw hell (the garbage heap outside of Jerusalem) as the symbolic end result of a life that doesn't care for God's creation. I highly recommend that you don't let the overused topic of hell get in the way of the full story of God's love for the world."

BGone:
"Good shootin' GK

I see you've eliminated hell from your faith. Now tell me why I should come to your church. Why should you be allowed to own real estate without paying RE taxes like the rest of us? Why should money you collect be tax deductible and not accounted for by you?

Better rethink hell. Don't let it get out there is no hell or your church will empty, Catholic churches for sure where by "church law" and under penalty of hell Catholics must go every Sunday and other days as well.

That will sell better to the ignorant."

Regarding you tax question, I'd like to know who you mean by "us." Since my particular church supports a homeless ministry, perhaps you are referring to the homeless population in my county. Or maybe by "us," you are referring to the kids living in poverty in our community since our church provides backpacks, school supplies, and money to our local school each year. I'm sure, by "us" you mean the folks who receive food from our food pantry each week. And by "us" you mean the many people in Africa who will not die because of the malaria nets we recently provided to protect children from insect bites while they sleep at night.

And this leads me to your final comment about hell. The people in my church don't attend worship because they are afraid of going to hell. They attend worship because they believe they have been called by God to care for God's good creation and work toward the day when there will be justice and peace for all people.

Peace,

1. I take note of Wright's disrespectful attitude: "RC" or "Romans" throughout--thin veiling for "papists." If "Roman Catholic" was too much to type, "Catholics" would have worked as well as "Anglican" or "Orthodox" seem to work for Wright as abbreviated usages for Church of England or Eastern Orthodox. Or, to put it more correctly, "Church" of England.

2. As Wright well knows, the reason the Church doesn't accept Anglican orders--and thus Anglican "eucharists"--is because Anglicans don't have the apostolic succession, whereas the Orthodox do. And by the way, the Orthodox were overall quite receptive to Benedict's statement.

3. Wright would be better off worrying about his sect's problems. Well, he has a cushy, established job while his sect slides into oblivion.

Good shootin' GK

I see you've eliminated hell from your faith. Now tell me why I should come to your church. Why should you be allowed to own real estate without paying RE taxes like the rest of us? Why should money you collect be tax deductible and not accounted for by you?

Better rethink hell. Don't let it get out there is no hell or your church will empty, Catholic churches for sure where by "church law" and under penalty of hell Catholics must go every Sunday and other days as well.

That will sell better to the ignorant.

GK Chesterton
Bill Lang:
"TJ, you probably have never read of Apostolic succession. The Catholic Church has the unbroken line of the laying on of hands granting the authority Jesus gave the Apostles, who passed it on to the next generation and so on. Only these Bishops and their ordained priests have the authority to consecrate the bread and wine, thus transfiguring them into Jesus' body blood soul and divinity. That is why Catholics have Eucharist and others have bread and wine{or grape juice}. This same Apostolic succession is why the Ctholic Church is the one true Church and others are Christian communities!

The Anglican church, for a period of about 150 years refused to lay on hands, thus ending the authority granted through the ages. The same for the other protestant communities. They still have salvation through their faith in Jesus, but are outside the physical authority Jesus established {similar to Sameritans, who were of Jewish desent but outside the authority given to the Pharissees{sp?}."

Well put, Bill. This accurate description doesn't ease the pain for us Protestants or branches from the Anglican Church in being seen as "less than the true church" but it does set the table for some understanding on both sides of the divide. Dr. Wright reconciles this by reminding himself that the majority of people, both Roman Catholic as well as those from other recognized Christian traditions will continue to focus on more urgent and pressing issues. Amen to that.

TJ, you probably have never read of Apostolic succession. The Catholic Church has the unbroken line of the laying on of hands granting the authority Jesus gave the Apostles, who passed it on to the next generation and so on. Only these Bishops and their ordained priests have the authority to consecrate the bread and wine, thus transfiguring them into Jesus' body blood soul and divinity. That is why Catholics have Eucharist and others have bread and wine{or grape juice}. This same Apostolic succession is why the Ctholic Church is the one true Church and others are Christian communities!

The Anglican church, for a period of about 150 years refused to lay on hands, thus ending the authority granted through the ages. The same for the other protestant communities. They still have salvation through their faith in Jesus, but are outside the physical authority Jesus established {similar to Sameritans, who were of Jewish desent but outside the authority given to the Pharissees{sp?}.

"that in this lifetime, we are to work toward that new world"

And perhaps if more of us remembered that and put in into practice, our faith would not evoke the visceral emotions from nonbelievers that it so often does.

On a personal level, it also makes no real difference to me or any of my Catholic friends. It is just the higher ups in an organization trying to feel important. Mr. Wright, thanks for answering the question in addition to simply stating the situation.

yoyo:
GKChesterton

"My last post might have been a little harsh
and unfair.
You seem like an OK guy,and my last point
should not have been directed at you.
My apologies.
You believe and I don't believe.
We should leave it at that.
Good luck."

No harm, no foul.
God bless.

yoyo:
GKC
"You have your blankie.Go in peace.
Christians are no bigger pain in the butt
than other superstitious believers.
The greatest Faith I ever saw,
was on 9/11 when 19 devoutly religious men
all college educated,martyred themselves while
killing almost 3000 other people.
Like you, they were totally convinced that
they were about God's work,and,if they were
right,they are now up in Paradise with the Big guy.
But we know better don't we?
We know they're just dust don't we GK?
Just like we all will be one day.
You could argue that priests are a real pain
in the butt to lots of little boys,but at
least they don't go around blowing people up.
Yeah,OK."

The Christian faith isn't about being in paradise (heaven) forever. The Christian faith is about loving God and his creation in the present world and dying ("to dust you shall return" the pastor says to me as I receive ashes on my forehead every Ash Wednesday) but then on Easter that same pastor says, "Christ has died. Christ is risen. Christ will come again!") This is the hope that we too will rise with Christ and be given new bodies, not to live in paradise (heaven) forever but to live in this world now totally renewed by God's love where there is no more hunger, heartache, pain, child molestation, terrorists flying planes into buildings, dog fighting, etc. I just had to add the dog fighting because cruelty to animals also repulses me. This is the hope of the Christian faith - that in this lifetime, we are to work toward that new world, and that one day, we will live forever on this earth, now fully transformed by God's love (back to the harmonious Garden of Eden.) The Bible goes full circle. Alleluia!

yoyo:
GKC
"You have your blankie.Go in peace.
Christians are no bigger pain in the butt
than other superstitious believers.
The greatest Faith I ever saw,
was on 9/11 when 19 devoutly religious men
all college educated,martyred themselves while
killing almost 3000 other people.
Like you, they were totally convinced that
they were about God's work,and,if they were
right,they are now up in Paradise with the Big guy.
But we know better don't we?
We know they're just dust don't we GK?
Just like we all will be one day.
You could argue that priests are a real pain
in the butt to lots of little boys,but at
least they don't go around blowing people up.
Yeah,OK."

The Christian faith isn't about being in paradise (heaven) forever. The Christian faith is about loving God and his creation in the present world and dying ("to dust you shall return" the pastor says to me as I receive ashes on my forehead every Ash Wednesday) but then on Easter that same pastor says, "Christ has died. Christ is risen. Christ will come again!") This is the hope that we too will rise with Christ and be given new bodies, not to live in paradise (heaven) forever but to live in this world now totally renewed by God's love where there is no more hunger, heartache, pain, child molestation, terrorists flying planes into buildings, dog fighting, etc. I just had to add the dog fighting because cruelty to animals also repulses me. This is the hope of the Christian faith - that in this lifetime, we are to work toward that new world, and that one day, we will live forever on this earth, now fully transformed by God's love (back to the harmonious Garden of Eden.) The Bible goes full circle. Alleluia!

BGone:
GK:

"If "Newsweek" finds out that the 19 who hijacked the planes 9-11-2001 come back to life I hope they have the good sense to call the FBI or somebody.

Does there have to be a hell if there is more life after this life?

Which came first in human thought, more life after this life of hell? Why would anyone even think of hell?

Was the person who introduced the concept of hell to the people of earth a nice person?

Give me one reason for hell other than to get rid of one's enemies one has killed that are potentially laying in wait in the next life. Skip the sin/God garbage.

Look at the pictures at http://www.hoax-buster.org of the person in route to the next life being tested for worthy to enter the next life. Is there a new version of hell that is different to the one outlined on that 3,000+ year old document?

Where in the Bible or elsewhere does Jesus ever mention a spirit, soul or ghost type person? Where does Jesus mention BODY entering the next life? Doesn't Jesus clearly separate BODY and SOUL for the dead? If they are separated after death are they not now separated? Explain please."

Actually, I think people spend way too much time talking about hell (especially the Medieval church theologians) but in the grand scheme of things, the scriptures (more specifically, Jesus) saw hell (the garbage heap outside of Jerusalem) as the symbolic end result of a life that doesn't care for God's creation. I highly recommend that you don't let the overused topic of hell get in the way of the full story of God's love for the world.

As to your second issue concerning the separation of body and soul, keep in mind that the Jewish faith out of which Christianity developed, did not share the Greek understanding of the separation of body and soul (not that all Greek philosphers believed this but that's another story.) Nor did 1st century Jewish faith share our modern day worldview of the separation of body and soul. They saw the physical body and the soul of the invidual more wholistically and intrically bound together. The word, "resurrection," for a 1st century Jew meant that one day, when God finally sets the world to rights, that all of God's people would be raised from their graves and given new bodies not subject to death and decay. When the early Christians used the word "resurrection" to describe Jesus, the Jewish people of their day would have certainly thought of a transformed physical body.

This post will garner some responses from Jesus' seminar adherents who disagree but I find it difficult to make that case especially since the Jewish faith itself (pre-Christianity) believed resurrection to be of a physical nature.

It's interesting that St. Augustine's (4th century) mother (a Christian) told her sons before she died that God would be able to find her body even though she would need to be laid to rest away from her home in Africa. Physical resurrection was the mindset, but in today's world, the name of the game is body/soul separation.

GK Chesterton:

Wow! Where's my blankie?!? Thanks for a compassionate entry here. So far the sewage-tosser posts outnumber ours about 7 to 1. So much for reasoned discourse - no wonder the world is a mess if we can't sit down and debate without throwing verbal bombs. Or real ones.

GKChesterton

My last post might have been a little harsh
and unfair.
You seem like an OK guy,and my last point
should not have been directed at you.
My apologies.
You believe and I don't believe.
We should leave it at that.
Good luck.

GKC
You have your blankie.Go in peace.
Christians are no bigger pain in the butt
than other superstitious believers.
The greatest Faith I ever saw,
was on 9/11 when 19 devoutly religious men
all college educated,martyred themselves while
killing almost 3000 other people.
Like you, they were totally convinced that
they were about God's work,and,if they were
right,they are now up in Paradise with the Big guy.
But we know better don't we?
We know they're just dust don't we GK?
Just like we all will be one day.
You could argue that priests are a real pain
in the butt to lots of little boys,but at
least they don't go around blowing people up.
Yeah,OK.

#5 - Read the cover of this week's "Newsweek" for people coming back to life.

GK:

If "Newsweek" finds out that the 19 who hijacked the planes 9-11-2001 come back to life I hope they have the good sense to call the FBI or somebody.

Does there have to be a hell if there is more life after this life?

Which came first in human thought, more life after this life of hell? Why would anyone even think of hell?

Was the person who introduced the concept of hell to the people of earth a nice person?

Give me one reason for hell other than to get rid of one's enemies one has killed that are potentially laying in wait in the next life. Skip the sin/God garbage.

Look at the pictures at http://www.hoax-buster.org of the person in route to the next life being tested for worthy to enter the next life. Is there a new version of hell that is different to the one outlined on that 3,000+ year old document?

Where in the Bible or elsewhere does Jesus ever mention a spirit, soul or ghost type person? Where does Jesus mention BODY entering the next life? Doesn't Jesus clearly separate BODY and SOUL for the dead? If they are separated after death are they not now separated? Explain please.

Yoyo:
"I simply reject the childlike acceptance of
a supernatural world of gods and other spooks.
Myths,all of them."

Me too. I believe in a loving God who created this world and called it good and seeks to redeem the pain and brokenness of this world through grace and love. This is the story of the God of Israel made known through the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus of Nazareth. Unlike so many posters on this board, I have not had negative church experiences to the point where I want to give up on this faith, although I will grant you Christians can be a real pain in the butt sometimes, including GK Chesterton. However, I have seen more incredible things happen and continue to happen through this sappy bunch called the church, that I also can't stick my head in the sand and discount the God of the Christian faith. And when I read the scriptures and do my best to not inject my post-modern perspective upon them, I can't for the life of me understand why people arrive at the conclusions they do except that maybe I would too if I had shared in their negative experiences of the church.

If that sounds childlike, then give me my blankie.

When is a God
not a God?

When he is somebody else's God.

Concerned
I'll go along with your definition of myths.

GKChesterton
Semantics seems your best defence.
But why bother?It doesn't change the big picture.
There is no God,and a "philosopher" named Jesus may
have existed. As I understand it,
it was a common name in those days.
...but who cares? He was no magic
man,unless you believe in magic,which you may do.
But i don't.
I write on the assumption that there are no gods,
just as you write on the assumption
that there is a God,or Gods.
I don't believe in Apollo,or Aphrodite.
or Jupiter,or Minerva.
or Thor,or Isis,or Amun.
or Vishnu,or Shiva.
I believe they were all invented by people.
just as your God was.
I simply reject the childlike acceptance of
a supernatural world of gods and other spooks.
Myths,all of them.

GK CHESTERSON

Read up on the council of Nice. The trinity God came about as a compromise. Until that time there were raging arguments about which God was which and there was three of them. The purpose of the council was for Constantine to explain who the boss was to the bishops.

Jesus was the primary God but Jesus was a man and men have fathers. Was God not fathered by God was a standard argument that caused God-the-father to be included.

Where is God when God is supposed to be everywhere or at least listening was another argument. That was explained as God is invisible, a ghost, (not spirit that meant something altogether different at the time than now). So the holy, meaning had no body ghost was also God.

Father, son and ghost make three, no brainer eh. Not so fast. They had been advertising ONE God. So Constantine demanded a clear statement detailing how the three could be one. From that comes the Nicene or Apostles creed.

Still not done. Have a seat. Trinity God, three clearly different Gods in one is a mystery. No kidding.

Needless to say, Constantine settled for being head of the church, (the real first pope) and absolute dictator of the known world. Poor guy didn't get hardly anything for sacrificing his assortment of gods for a mystery.

Constantine increased spending, (built himself a huge palace etc), cut taxes, (for rich cronies) and balanced the budget. Voodoo economics according to GHW Bush and clearly a miracle happened. He introduced tithing, taxes paid to God, (him) showing that he was a lot smarter than the Bush bunch who didn't realize that's what Regan had in mind when he courted the moral majority, (End public charity and turn all help for the poor over to the church).

Bishop Wright,

Thanks, you are 'spot on'! For the record, I am American and Episcopal.

If the Bishop of Rome wishes to declare me a 'second class citizen', which he most certainly has, then that is his right. I'm not about to lose any sleep over it. Nor will I bash RCs about it.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated:
GK Chesterton,

"Thumping the OT does not work anymore besides Genesis 1:1-2 at least in my copy says nothing about some third person of a divided god.

see also: http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

Never did figure out how one divides a Singularity or why this all powerful Singularity needs help or why it needs offsprings being everlasting and all.

Then there is the issue of filicide which defies all reason i.e. an all powerful, all merciful God sending his Son to be murdered for the sins of the surviving hominids.

Professor Crossan's take on atonement theology as part of your reading allowing you to slowly heal from years of belonging to the "pope cult":

(from his book, "Who is Jesus" co-authored with Richard Watts)

"Moreover, an atonement theology that says God sacrifices his own son in place of humans who needed to be punished for their sins might make some Christians love Jesus, but it is an obscene picture of God. It is almost heavenly child abuse, and may infect our imagination at more earthly levels as well. I do not want to express my faith through a theology that pictures God demanding blood sacrifices in order to be reconciled to us."

"Traditionally, Christians have said, 'See how Christ's passion was foretold by the prophets." Actually, it was the other way around. The Hebrew prophets did not predict the events of Jesus' last week; rather, many of those Christian stories were created to fit the ancient prophecies in order to show that Jesus, despite his execution, was still and always held in the hands of God."

"In terms of divine consistency, I do not think that anyone, anywhere, at any time, including Jesus, brings dead people back to life."

#1 - I quote two verses and this is considered "thumping?"
#2 - Your doctrine of atonement is extremely limited and not comprehensive of the scriptures.
#3 - And no, I'm not a member of the 1 billion people involved in the "pope cult" as you call it.
#4 - Your understanding of the resurrection is also very limited and predictable. The NT writers were every bit as confounded with Jesus' resurrection as you or I would have been. A strong case (and stronger than the one you are making) can easily be made that in trying to make sense of the bodily resurrection of Jesus, this led them to view it in light of the OT passages.
#5 - Read the cover of this week's "Newsweek" for people coming back to life.

But myth does require significant fiction and embellishment e.g. the OT and NT.

myth (mĭth)
n.

A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth.
Such stories considered as a group: the realm of myth.
A popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence, especially one considered to illustrate a cultural ideal: a star whose fame turned her into a myth; the pioneer myth of suburbia.
A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology.
A fictitious story, person, or thing: “German artillery superiority on the Western Front was a myth” (Leon Wolff).

YoYo:

"I thought my point was obvious.
Nothing wrong with myth...just don't
confuse it with the reality.
Nothing wrong with fiction,as long as we
know it's fiction."

Your response shows that you really don't know what the word, "myth" means. Again, it does not necessarily imply "non-historical."

Religion is crossing your fingers and hoping never to die.It makes no sense but what you gonna do?
It's better than nothing.
Priests tell us that crossing our fingers will get us into heaven providing we REALLY BELIEVE,and are nice to people.(Little boys? Lets not go there}
So what the heck,maybe it'll work.
But then again what kinda fruitcake walks around with his fingers crossed all the time?
I am not so scared of dying that I'll behave like the village idiot!
Forgedaboutit.

GK Chesterton,

Thumping the OT does not work anymore besides Genesis 1:1-2 at least in my copy says nothing about some third person of a divided god.

see also: http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

Never did figure out how one divides a Singularity or why this all powerful Singularity needs help or why it needs offsprings being everlasting and all.

Then there is the issue of filicide which defies all reason i.e. an all powerful, all merciful God sending his Son to be murdered for the sins of the surviving hominids.

Professor Crossan's take on atonement theology as part of your reading allowing you to slowly heal from years of belonging to the "pope cult":

(from his book, "Who is Jesus" co-authored with Richard Watts)

"Moreover, an atonement theology that says God sacrifices his own son in place of humans who needed to be punished for their sins might make some Christians love Jesus, but it is an obscene picture of God. It is almost heavenly child abuse, and may infect our imagination at more earthly levels as well. I do not want to express my faith through a theology that pictures God demanding blood sacrifices in order to be reconciled to us."

"Traditionally, Christians have said, 'See how Christ's passion was foretold by the prophets." Actually, it was the other way around. The Hebrew prophets did not predict the events of Jesus' last week; rather, many of those Christian stories were created to fit the ancient prophecies in order to show that Jesus, despite his execution, was still and always held in the hands of God."

"In terms of divine consistency, I do not think that anyone, anywhere, at any time, including Jesus, brings dead people back to life."

BGone

Can't argue with your last post.
Religion is certainly the biggest con of all.
The 9/11 Muslim martyrs showed how bad it can be.
Those guys lapped up the snake oil,bet their
lives on it:and lost.

The Romans have an interesting tradition regarding the use of the word "objectively". It is highly ritualized, a sign marking sacred rhetoric. It places the designated claims beyond the need for demonstration and argument - "Here lies unimpeachable truth" - presumably because the Pope has been communing with the Holy Spirit who has revealed it to him.

YOYO:

Are you familiar with the elements of the con? After the setup the victim is fleeced but before he can find out he's been conned the confidence men are long gone and he's left with wisdom for his money.

Religion is the IDEAL CON. The greatest benefit of religion over other con jobs is the final stroke, when the victim finds out he's been suckered. That don't happen until after he's dead so the con men have no need to hurry away from the scene, one of the trickier parts of the usual con.

The last thing the religious con men do is make the hell threat while the victim is dying. "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven" works well to get the entire estate. There's schools for training "death bed" operators. Been to school myself.

The church needs the money and it has a ton of it. Over a TRILLION dollars will go to the Vatican over the generation. And it's tax free and tax deductible. Do the arithmetic. How much revenue is lost to religion? How much higher are your taxes because con men pan none, not even on their real estate, gained in exchange for an imaginary ticket to heaven by the dying under a final gun of hell to the head threat.

Hell is terror max. The absolute terror of hell brings the big money to the terrorists, con men at the bedside of the dying wealthy.

Religions are a human response to the fear of death and nothingness that awaits us all when our lives end.
If we never died...if death didn't exist...we wouldn't need religion.We wouldn't need to waste time
sucking up to God in order to get into Heaven. We wouldn't need Heaven.We would prefer to stay alive on earth.
But of course we do die,and it's hard to get our heads around that grim idea. Death is scary. We would rather not think about it,or talk about it.And we'd prefer our kids not hear about it,either.
Enter Religion,offering eternal life, God, and fear management.
All you have to do is believe and your problems are over .You are not going to die.You have our word.
Be good,pray and read your Bible and heaven awaits. Just have Faith.

Bishop:??

"A Caste System for Christians"

Doesn't religion, the acceptance of a kingdom, "the kingdom of God" not inherently mean a cast system?

Perhaps someday England will enjoy democracy too, eliminate the cast system of nobility and commoners.

Check this out: "We hold these truths to be self evident, all men are created equal..."

That's what democracy is all about, all men equal. That includes Moses, Jesus (actually a woman), Muhammad, Joseph Smith (Yank religion) and of course there can be no nobility at all.

You're getting there. The pope is trying to be the king of earth, Jesus' Vicar with the power to sign His holy name. You English must resist that else you can never have democracy.

The Bible of course give his holiness that power. Matthew 18:18 [Jesus speaking] "I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

So you have choices. You can submit to the pope's authority or you can say there is something wrong with the Bible. Of course his holiness doesn't want to hear that there's something wrong with the Bible.

Thinking about http://www.hoax-buster.org surely makes the pope's head hurt. I'm willing to wager it doesn't do anything to make your head feel any better. You too slop at the trough of religion that inherently must rely on "a cast system." Jesus is the king of kings. The pope is only ruling His kingdom while we await the return of Jesus to claim His throne. Jesus appointed him. The Bible says so.

Being the king of kings sounds like a really good job. But it doesn't sound very democratic, "all men created equal" and so on. Probably some kind of cast system is what we can expect for all eternity in the kingdom of God. Don't you think?

GK Chesterton

I thought my point was obvious.
Nothing wrong with myth...just don't
confuse it with the reality.
Nothing wrong with fiction,as long as we
know it's fiction.
Caesar existed.He is not a mythological
figure.So did Socrates,Plato and Aristotle.
There is much evidence of their existence,
not so with JC.
Religion thrives on myth and superstition.
People die for their religion.Think 9/11
As far as we know,reality is all we got.
We should make the most of it.

YoYo:
GK Chesterton

"Its silly to believe in a literal Jesus.
He may not actually have existed at all.
If you were to read more widely,
you would find that there were many
Jesus types and so called virgin births long before biblical times.
It's all myth and very little reality.
Our distant past is littered with superstition,
which was what they had in lieu of knowledge.
Don't be a gullible lemming.
The world of reality is a lot more interesting
than the make believe world of religion."

Yes, including Caesar but what's your point? Actually, if you read more widely, you might know that "myth" does not necessarily mean "non-historical" as you imply. I used to have no problem using the word, "myth" in speaking of the scriptural narrative, but since people don't understand the meaning of this word in the ancient context, I've opted not to use it. It's part of that fact/truth dichotomy that we have going on in our modern worldview.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated:
GK Chesterton:

"Ahh, the Holy Spirit- Just where does this guy/gal/"thirty three percenter" come into the picture???"

Answer: Genesis 1:1-2

GK Chesterton

Its silly to believe in a literal Jesus.
He may not actually have existed at all.
If you were to read more widely,
you would find that there were many
Jesus types and so called virgin births long before biblical times.
It's all myth and very little reality.
Our distant past is littered with superstition,
which was what they had in lieu of knowledge.
Don't be a gullible lemming.
The world of reality is a lot more interesting
than the make believe world of religion.

GK Chesterton:

Ahh, the Holy Spirit- Just where does this guy/gal/"thirty three percenter" come into the picture??? "Me thinks", early theologians had way too much time on their hands. Somehow the Jewish, Greek, Babylonian et al "theologians" somehow overlooked this ghostly wonder. But they did find "pretty wingie talking thingies" under their beds. Hmmmm, I believe this ghostly spirit did appear somewhere as a winged dove?? How does that work being a spirit and all???

During a Confirmation at our parish where I was one of the altar boys (not sexually harrassed thank God), a sparrow flew into church and sat on the tabernacle for a few minutes. Such a disappointment since I was expecting a "pure white wingie thingie".

The Catholic Cathechism, hmmmm, another one of those x's in x is correct because x says so and generated by a bunch of old, white, male, "celibate", Europeans every 400 years or so.

Bill Lang wrote: "You no longer have the authority to consecrate the Eucharist, thus you still only have bread and wine."

... as opposed to catholics who have only bread and wine.

Oh Bill Lang thank you. That's one of the funniest things I've read in quite a while.

GK, you'll learn in time to ignore concerned. You know what they say about wrestleing with a pig in mud!

Bishop, you know full well about the breaking of the laying on of hands at the ordination of new priests. For over a 150 years the Anglican community refused to practice this rite and thus invalidly ordained all it's clergy over time. You no longer have the authority to consecrate the Eucharist, thus you still only have bread and wine. In the old Testament, if the priests refused to cleanse themselves the sacrafice would be invalid{defiled}.

Bishop Wright,

You told it as it is.

Thanks

Christian Now Liberated:

"The catholic Eucharist is Jesus by the way, that is what Jesus said at the Last Supper and that is what He meant and also when the Holy Spirit came into my body on 29 Jan 2000."

And what "pretty wingie talking thingie" accomplished that bit of magic???

Answer: The invocation of the Holy Spirit by the Priest. Hint: You can pick up a catechism book and it will give you the answers.

Thomas Baum,

You noted:

"The catholic Eucharist is Jesus by the way, that is what Jesus said at the Last Supper and that is what He meant and also when the Holy Spirit came into my body on 29 Jan 2000."

And what "pretty wingie talking thingie" accomplished that bit of magic???

And the history jury of many NT exegetes have concluded that the Last Supper scenario was heavily if not completely made up.

Not historic Jesus - Supper and Eucharist: (1a) 1 Cor 10:14-22; (1b) 1 Cor 11:23-25; (2) Mark 14:22-25 = Matt 26:26-29 = Luke 22:15-19a[19b-20]; (3) Did. 9:1-4; (4) John 6:51b-58.

An excerpt from http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/016_Supper_and_Eucharist

At the same time, Luedemann concludes that the portrayal of Jesus celebrating such a ritual on the night before his death is not historical. He is clear that there is "no generic relationship" between any actual final meal and the Lord's Supper understood in cultic terms. He also denies the Passover character of the supper as a Markan creation. Like Meier (below), Luedemann does accept the saying (Mark 14:25) about drinking wine in the kingdom of God as authentic. He concludes: (this saying) "hardly came into being in the early community, for in it Jesus does not exercise any special function for believers at the festal meal in heaven which is imminent. Only Jesus' expectation of a the future kingdom of God stands at the centre, not Jesus as saviour, judge or intercessor."

We sure seem to get caught up in things that are a distraction to say the least. I am a catholic and I cherish my catholic faith, and my job as the New Testament Moses is to tell the whole world that everybody will be in the Kingdom of God or if you prefer the Kingdom of Love, since God is Pure Love. The catholic Eucharist is Jesus by the way, that is what Jesus said at the Last Supper and that is what He meant and also when the Holy Spirit came into my body on 29 Jan 2000, He revealed it to me, thank you Holy Spirit. God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof, the only true religion is taking care of widows and orphans, which basically is the whole human race since we are all brothers and sisters. Thank you Dad for Your Plan, thank you Brother for your obedience to The Plan and thank you Knitting Buddy for bringing The Plan to Fruition. By the way the preceding sentence is referring to God the Trinity; Father-Jesus said to think of Him as our Dad, Brother-Jesus by choosing to become a human being and asking permission from Mary, who freely said her Yes, became humanity's Brother as in the entire human race, Knitting Buddy, the Holy Spirit who knits us together in our mother's womb. Jesus won the keys to hell and spiritual death and He will use them in due time. God has never sent anyone to hell because He can't, you have to build it yourself first. People that slice and dice the bible would be better off throwing the whole bible away, Jesus said a lot of things when He was walking on this planet a while back and if you don't know what He was talking about, don't try to mislead others. The whole bible is true and there is probably plenty in there that I don't know what it means but I don't have too, I am just a messenger and the message is: God wins, satan loses, a tie is unacceptable; we are in the sixth day, they are God Days by the way, and night is coming, be ready, the dawning of the seventh day will also be here. It seems like a lot of people will be trying to hide behind their religion but God looks at what you do and why you do it and also what you know. God is so so so much nicer than some of the people that call themselves christians think that He is and sad to say, than some want Him to be. Take care. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Concerned:
"What reality and history now conclude:

Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations, has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth."

Post-modern snobbery at work again...

Do you not understand the writing culture/worldview of ancient history? Contrary to your patronizing comments, these were not dumb people.

Arthur Di Tullio states:

"I'm not afraid to die (I'm sixty-nine) and I'm certainly not pondering what happens after death, since no one in world history has ever come back-isn't that strange?"

No it isn't. Christianity claims that Jesus came back from death in a resurrected body. This is why Christianity exists in the first place.

69 years old? You're still young!

Benedict can call us "second-class citizens," all he wants. We choose to ignore that statement as not worthy of argument, all paths that lead to God are good paths.

The basic problem is the Catholic pope "cult" culture that has grown over the centuries i.e. only the pope "talks" to God and the pope cannot error in matters of dogma.

Hmmm, well history and realism are catching up with cults of any kind.

One definition of a cult:

A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader

e.g. 1 )Muslims and their Mohammed, and the clerics, ayatollahs, imams and "angel freaks" who follow the illiterate, warmongering, hallucinating Arab's koranic ways 2) "Jesus Freaks" like Bob Jones' followers 3) "Latin Mass /Catholic only/"angel loving" Filiciders brainwashed by the likes of B16 and the previous all white male, "celibate, "aarpie", mostly European "charismatics" called popes.

Then there are the foundations of this pope "cult" culture.

What reality and history now conclude:

Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations, has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth. Analyses of his life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists)via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and pagan sects. These embellishments also include all the scriptural references to papal authority and Rock foundations.

e.g. See Professor Crossan's book, The Historical Jesus:

John 14: 26 not historic ( 62-. Spirit under Trial: (1) 1Q: Luke 12:11-12 = Matt
10:19-20; (2) Mark 13:11 = Matt 10: 19-20 = Luke 21:14-15; (3) John 14:26.)

Matt 16: 18-19 not historic (73- Who Is Jesus?: (1) Gos. Thom. 13; (2a) Mark
8:27-30 = Matt 16:13-20 = Luke 9:18-21; (2b) Gos. Naz. 14; (2c) John 6:67-69.)

1 Timothy- not written by St. Paul (See Crossan’s “In Search of Paul”, Harper, San
Francisco, 2004, p.105)

2 Peter 1:20
Since Schillebeeckx basically ruled out prophecies by concluding God does not know
the future, one can rule out the infallible nature of this verse.

Also from Raymond Brown’s, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2 Peter was
the last canonical work written i.e. ~ 130 AD, author unknown. Tis a bit dated for use in claiming infallibility plus the verse is not from Jesus or Peter but some possible remembrance of a scribe.

From another source:
Also think about the logic (or lack thereof).
“I believe the Bible is inspired.” “Why?” “Because it says so.” Would you or anyone let that logic pass if it came from the followers of any other book
or person? “I believe x is inspired because x says so.” Fill in the blanks:

x=Pat Robertson
x=the ayatolloah Sistani (sp?)
x=David Koresh
x=the Koran
x=B16

Most Orthodox view RCs as a moving raft in the river of fast moving protestant water.

Anglicans completely forget their roots with Henry the VIIIth. Further their Church in England and America is a complete mess, too sordid to list.

The Orthodox always refer to the Fathers and the Church Councils as a reference point. All of these remarks, the Pope's and Bishop Wright's are more clearly understood from that perspective. Rome's ecuminicism has always been a smoke screen to hide what they were up to. The Pope's remarks are refreshing.

What is the difference? There is no proof of a supernatural being called "God."

The argument among christians is at the lowest point of difference, ie., that there is some wonderful (dreadful) supreme being delivering
fantastic deeds and somehow horrible retribution
for the non-believers, and we, the unwashed, are really in for it.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but aren't we all (all who have lived and those who are coming) in for horrible tiimes in all of our lives?

I'm not afraid to die (I'm sixty-nine) and I'm certainly not pondering what happens after death, since no one in world history has ever come back-isn't that strange?