As been said many times all Catholics are Christian but not all Christians are catholic
I think that's what he means.
Man and dinosaurs, when did we first know about them?
- Thread starter jmc007
- Start date
As been said many times all Catholics are Christian but not all Christians are catholic
I think that's what he means.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
These people are not real catholics or Christians. Jesus believed the creation story from genesis. If jesus was god or the son of god then he would not have spoke of genesis as though it was an account and not a story.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 8,305
- Location
- Aranyaprathet, Thailand
1) Can you please quote me your evidence that Jesus affirmed the creation story from Genesis?
2) Please quote your evidence that Jesus "was god or the son of god" that we should take any alleged affirmation of the literal truth of Genesis as "Proof" that it is true.
2) Please quote your evidence that Jesus "was god or the son of god" that we should take any alleged affirmation of the literal truth of Genesis as "Proof" that it is true.
I'm unsure who is serious in the thread and who is having a laugh, you'd have all your work ahead of you proving Jesus existed let alone a god.
Even conceding a god could not be totally disproved, creationism lost this argument a long time ago, you do find the odd nut-job throwing their fecal matter at the moon I'll grant you but just how much credulity can people have?
Even conceding a god could not be totally disproved, creationism lost this argument a long time ago, you do find the odd nut-job throwing their fecal matter at the moon I'll grant you but just how much credulity can people have?
Maybe. Maybe not. Buddha is all knowing and all loving
What is Marco Polo describing here in "The Travels Of Marco Polo", The Venetian?
"Leaving the city of Yachi and traveling ten days into a westerly direction, you reach the Province of Karazan which is also the name of its chief city… Here are seen huge serpents, ten paces in length and ten spans in the girt of the body. At the fore-part, near the head, they have two short legs, having three claws like those of a tiger, with eyes larger than a fourpenny loaf and very glaring. The jaws are wide enough to swallow a man, the teeth are large and sharp and their whole appearance is so formidable, that neither man, nor any kind of animal, can approach them without terror. Others are met with a smaller size, being eight, six or five paces long; and the following method is used for taking them: In the day-time, by reason of the great heat, they lurk in caverns, from whence, at night, they issue to seek their food and whatever beast they meet with and can lay hold of, whether tiger, wolf, or any other, they devour; after which they drag themselves towards some lake, spring of water, or river, in order to drink. By their motion in this way along the shore, and their vast weight, they make a deep impression, as if a heavy beam had been drawn along the sands."
"Those whose employment it is to hunt them observe the track by which they are most frequently accustomed to go, and fix into the ground several pieces of wood, armed with sharp iron spikes, which they cover with the sand in such a manner as not to be perceptible. When therefore the animals make their way towards the places they usually haunt, they are wounded by these instruments and speedily killed. The crows, as soon as they perceive them to be dead, set up their scream; and this serves as a signal to the hunters, who advance to the spot and proceed to separate the skin from the flesh, taking care immediately to secure the gall, which is most highly esteemed in medicine. In cases of the bite of a mad dog, a pennyweight of it, dissolved in wine, is administered. It is also useful in accelerating parturition, when the labour pains of women have come on. A small quantity of it being applied to carbuncles, pustules or other eruptions on the body, they are presently dispersed; and it is efficacious in many other complaints. The flesh of the animal is also sold at a dear rate, being thought to have a higher flavour than other kinds of meat and by all persons it is esteemed a delicacy."
By the way mate you do know Marco Polo was a renowned liar? Pretty much everything he did was inflated.They called him after all Marco's Million's or something because of his millions of tales and lies.
The Papacy, The Magisterium, The Holy See, The Church Fathers such as St Augustine (who had a different perception of Genesis or rather Creation than it being either allegorical or literal) and also many of the Protestant Denominational Councils would disagree with you...and I would say that they are eminently better qualified than you to determine both their theology and who is a real member of their relative Churches than you are.
Also Christ spoke most often didactically (as in parables) and it can be demonstrated that he referenced Genesis, not literally, but as metaphor...Mark 10 is an example of this. Origen, Jerome and others from the Catechetical School of Alexandria make the point that Genesis is allegorical, this formed part of the basis of the Nicene Creed...it isn't really until the rise of Protestantism in the 15-16th centuries that Biblical Literalism regarding Creation is given much credence.
You are unfortunately reading the same material as Kedge and Wheats, and making conclusions based on a minority and flawed interpretation of scripture that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
The truth is that the majority of Christian Churches (Protestant, Catholic, Eastern, Orthodox) abide by what is called The Framework Hypothesis and its variants, which effectively assumes a symbolic and allegorical nature toward the scripture to determine the deeper truths within. You are basically agreeing with Kedge and his ilk in stating that unless you adhere to a very limited and specific literal interpretation of the Bible you are not a real Christian, this is demonstrably false as the Bible makes a varied and extensive use of allegory, metaphor and symbolism within its pages.
No, it isn't. You assume it's assumed because you are ignorant of the dating techniques used. Other dating techniques are used for older things, precisely because carbon dating won't work.
You even contradict yourself - you rightly state that carbon dating can only date up to ~50,000 years (in theory - in practice it's a lot less) but you previously state that your favoured "paleontologists" (who I bet aren't paleontologists) use carbon dating to date dinosaur bones at less than 40,000 years old. Free clue - any organic material older than carbon dating limits shows the same results if you use carbon dating on it. You could take something a billion years old and carbon dating would give it an age you could pretend is less than 40,000 years if you were ignorant or lying.
True, but the available evidence all points to roughly the same age - about 4.5 billion years. It's not exact, that's true, but it's a pretty narrow range.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
jesus references the old testament a good few times and indeed the characters from i5 such as Abraham or moses and importantly adam. Whilst he doesn't state that Genesis is a fact he implies as much he even regurgitate s why man has sin at all because before adam there was no sin and that Adams original sin is what caused death to occur to all men and through this is the reason that jesus had to come to earth at all, to die for mans sin.
Was there a holy see in jesus day who believed that jesus was the son of god but also corrected jesus? No therefore a modern holy see is only appointed as such by man not by god or jesus and like the pharisee in jesus time
this could equally be applicable to modern day religious leaders who's crowd base was built by jesus Christ but have now diverted away from jesus real teachings for their own purpose
“But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.”
The Old Testament is somewhat larger than simply Genesis, and throughout the New Testament it is referenced by the Gospels in a allegorical way..Christ does so in Mark 10 as I stated earlier, it would be very strange indeed to accept that Christ actually meant that literally. Christ used parables to instruct and teach certain principles, the parables themselves are analogous for the purpose of comparison. This doesn't imply a literalism in Christology that you are stating.
You only accept a literal interpretation of the words themselves, you do not understand either the original definitions of such, for example the small fact that in the Hebrew Bible "Adam" actually mean "Man" in both the plural and singular...it's etymology shows that it is (like many Hebrew words) multifaceted in its definition..for example the simple term Adam in ancient Hebrew implies something that is Made from the Earth at the same time as referring to Mankind and a Man...therefore this illustrates again the limitations in taking a singular literal interpretation of the translations...or that Jesus would certainly have been referencing the Pentateuch (as opposed to the Old Testament, which had not yet been defined) and this is seen as a foundational narrative for instruction of the deeper truths of God's Word rather than the literal expression of God's Word. The word Torah means to Guide and being as Jesus was a Jew, he would almost certainly have had the same understanding.
Stop reading the Creationism websites for your understanding of Christianity Nickg, and try to get a broader and more accurate understanding of the myriad of valid Christian Theologies and Interpretations before making such definitive statements about who is a real Christian or not...
This is a false premise...to say that because there was no Holy See or Church Authority during Christ's time in order to support the idea that literal Biblicists are the only real Christians fails on the simple fact that there were not even any Christians during Christ's time on Earth let alone a Christian Bible with which to take literally in the first place....His followers were either Second Temple Jews or Messianic Jews. It is also demonstrable that Christ spoke about Genesis (and other parts of the Hebrew Bible) in an allegorical and analogous manner.
Jesus did not appoint Christians, Christianity formed around the ministry of Christ some time after his death..it was not a declaration of authority by association to Christ.
Clearly it is not applicable, as the premise is flawed. It also has nothing to do with the your original statement as to whether People who have an allegorical understanding of Genesis are real Christians or not...
Origen wrote in De Principiis about the fallacy of accepting Genesis as literal:
De Principiis Book IV said:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04124.htm
Last edited:
What are you on about, Castiel? Everyone knows Jesus spoke English with an American accent and rode a large theropod
Haha...I sometimes wonder at the logic of some people, it just seems to me that the ideas being put forward by some Creationists and people like The Running Man are borne out of ignorance of the subject matter and they are simply following anything that suits their particular bias.
The quote “The eye sees only what the mind is prepared to comprehend.” seems to be appropriate in the majority of these cases.
I know, it's amazing. Physics must be a lie because it describes the decay of isotopes which place the age of the Earth at ~4.5bn years, but they are happy to use technology to spread their bile which relies on the very physics they despise 
I know, it's amazing. Physics must be a lie because it describes the decay of isotopes which place the age of the Earth at ~4.5bn years, but they are happy to use technology to spread their bile which relies on the very physics they despise
Which is ironic to say the least...as well as being illogical and patently wrong, it also gives a false impression about what most Christians actually believe, which only increases the misunderstanding and intolerance between people who would normally be content to accept each other for who and what they are.
Are people really that stupid that they think the creatures in Job are not Dinosaurs?
Also try as hard as you can, no matter how convinced you may be, to leave room for possible error in what you only know from being told. Why the deception or is it simply a mistake of modern historians saying we have never lived with such creatures?
Behemoth quite clearly is what we know now as a dinosaur; the description below is an accurate translation, check the original Hebrew yourself. How did they know about an animal they supposedly should not have, describing it's movement even?
Behemoth.
15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.
Leviathan.
Job 41
15 His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal.
19 Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out.
20 Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron.
21 His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.
Also try as hard as you can, no matter how convinced you may be, to leave room for possible error in what you only know from being told. Why the deception or is it simply a mistake of modern historians saying we have never lived with such creatures?
Behemoth quite clearly is what we know now as a dinosaur; the description below is an accurate translation, check the original Hebrew yourself. How did they know about an animal they supposedly should not have, describing it's movement even?
Behemoth.
15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.
Leviathan.
Job 41
15 His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal.
19 Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out.
20 Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron.
21 His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,758
- Location
- Auckland
OP said:
Do you know what irony means?
