Posted on 03/30/2002 7:53:37 PM PST by malakhi
Thanks.
Would you agree that this was inevitable?
That's hard to say, since the complete works of the council are no longer extant.
Think about it a minute, Dave. Can you imagine being a mormon sitting on Havoc's porch? ;o)
This comment is a real eye roller. BARF ALERT! Ten alarm BARF ALERT!
Oh the injury suffered by those who were holding their breath just waiting for the appearance of a post that never came. What could be more important in great scheme of things, than to do or die, to get that post finished so that all the important people on this sacred and hallowed list, could read it. Heartbroken as you are, I pray that you will recover from this monumental breech of good faith (NOT) and that in your manly nobility, great as it is, you will consider that one crappy post on a site on the internet has nothing to do with anything that amounts to anything. ;O>
You probably guessed already that it didn't end in agreement. ;o)
Gotta go with Mack on this one, Pelayo. You're not married, but suppose you were visiting your mother, and she asked you to run to the grocery store to pick up a gallon of milk. You say, "sure, I'll go after I'm done reading the newspaper". The next morning, there is no milk for the Cheerios. Are you going to tell your mother that you didn't promise to pick up the milk?
Okay, okay! LOL! You know what I mean, more fit than Moses for his mission. LOL!
The point is, the whole flap is far less important than milk for Cheerios.
No, I don't. This was written by a (biased) Christian author at a time when Jewish and Christian relations had already grown strained. Find me an independent account of the same events, and I will believe it.
Now you, on the other hand, accept John's gospel as scripture. So you really are obliged to believe it is true. Do you?
Theresa, all Pelayo had to do was say "I didn't have time to do it, and I don't think that I will", and that would have been the end of it. Instead, he tried to say that the rest of us misunderstood him. The essay isn't even the point any more.
Sure, and if Pelayo said "mom, I'm sorry, I forgot", or something to that effect, it wouldn't even become an issue in my hypothetical scenario. But if he got all huffy and tried to insist that he never promised to get the milk, I think mom would be unhappy. Theresa, I believe you are married, right? What would your reaction be if your husband pulled that line on you? Be honest.
If you said you would do post something for a bunch of people on a discussion group site on the internet and you did not do it, and nobody is worse off, has lost money or sleep over it, then just say you changed your mind and let em suck it up. They are just trying to manipulate you. You did not do anything wrong.
The point is, he didn't say that he changed his mind. Instead, he got huffy and carried on about not having promised anything. He made it a big deal through his own defensiveness. I could care less whether or not he ever posted the reply. That is not consequential. What I don't understand is his apparent unwillingness to just say "I didn't have the time, and I don't think I'll be able to do it". There's no loss of face in saying that; it is a perfectly reasonable explanation.
And its not because he's Catholic. If I did the same thing, I'd expect people to react the same way.
Twenty six years to the most wonderful grouchy old cowboy in the world. He has obligations to me. Pelyo does not. And if my hubby said we would get the milk and did not because he did not formally promised to get the milk we would go without milk. I could care less. It's just too petty. I am not perfect myself. That's how I have stayed married twenty six years. ;O>
It was explained to me in about about 10 minutes when I was about 8 years old. It so easy to understand! I have explained it to 2nd graders in Catechism class. They catch on in less than 10 minutes.
A challenging question. Do you mean do I believe the account exactly as written? I always have! But must I as a loyal Catholic believe the account is as accurate as FOX news? No I don't think so. I have to do some neglected homework on this.
But I am reading a book right now called A History of Christianity by Phillip Johnson. He is an English Roman Catholic. It is a no punches pulled book, and he brought up this very thing, he questioned if that passage was there to blame the Jews and not the Romans. Many similar challenges to the status quo view of Christian gospel are in it. Along with wonderful insights about St. Paul that I never knew and all kinds of other things as well. Can the gospel handle his challenge? Can I? Sure! A more mature faith is always a good thing.
He's one author with one opinion. I have to finish this book and read more by others from all points of the Catholic spectrum. And of course keep my bible close to hand when I do.
So that's my non-answer. ;O>
Hi angelo! Yes, I would agree. Quite true especially in the case of St. Constantine. Which I think supports my critique of the article, "governments don't embrace, individuals do." To say that the Roman government embraced Christianity for political reasons is false. You could propose that Constantine embraced Christianity for political reasons. But then you have to deal with the personality and heart of a living man, and I propose that the conversions of real men are never so simplistic as to be attributable to a single reason.
That's a hard one, Angelo, it's a reverse prediction. But, yes, I think it was inevitable for a couple of reasons. First because Jesus was so different from what Jews of the time expected the Messiah to be. Certainly not a man who died the horrible death of a criminal at the hands of their oppressor. (It was centuries before even Christians would reproduce this event in art.)
Second, I think it became inevitable with Paul and the proslytizing of the gentiles. This may be a chicken and egg question too, since proto-Christians were being kicked out anyway.
In a way, it's pretty remarkable that temple Jews survived the destruction of the temple as a meaningful whole. There already were many many sects/division vying for supremacy at the time of Jesus, they could have gone their separate ways.
Instead it became comprised mostly two Jewish sects: Rabbinical and Christian, with the former including many of the reform aspects of the latter sorta like Roman Catholics and Protestants.
Interesting question, thanks. I wonder if it could have been possible, what it would have taken, for Judaism to be the one converting the pagan world instead of Christians…
If you like, I can upload this to my web site so anyone can download it and give it a listen.
I couldn't decipher the words when the break rolled around. I'll get them in a couple of weeks. I know the word "Yeshua" is in there tho. Uh oh. Sure, you may post it if you like.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.