Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: kosta50

I believe the poster was attempting to draw some connection between John 20:19 and the manner of Jesus birth when there is none.

Why would that be attempted? I must assume because of a tale even the Catholic Church recognizes as spurious is accepted as fact by the poster.

“The reason for the belief has to do with the supernatural nature of Incarnation and Resurrection as such”

Sounds more like getting lost in the jungles of speculative analogies and never finding the way out.


3,008 posted on 11/22/2010 11:20:37 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2977 | View Replies ]


To: count-your-change
Sounds more like getting lost in the jungles of speculative analogies and never finding the way out

Very likely. Religions are prone to that, these threads being perfect examples of that.

But don't think the Protestants are not in it. Take for example Christmas being on December 25th? It ain't biblical but the Prots accept it. I have yet to read a Protestant thread that calls Christmas a spurious and a speculative date. :)

3,013 posted on 11/22/2010 11:37:09 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3008 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson