Posted on 01/06/2003 2:11:30 PM PST by mgstarr
Kind of falls in the "My-Dog-Ate-My-Homework" category.
Ummm... they tried. In 711 they invaded Spain from North Africa, and held it a good long while. They besieged Vienna in 1529 and 1683. And had they not been stopped at Vienna, all of Europe would have lay before them like meat on a platter.
That's what I meant. They would have gone on to grab all of Europe right then, except there was nothing there worth the trouble. There was a bit of history in the time between the Saracens and the siege of Vienna. Different game. The next great danger to Europe was the Mongols who sacked Baghdad, almost destroyed Islam altogether, and who were stopped by Turks thereby saving Europe, which nobody cared about anyway.
I seem to be missing something here. If nobody cared about Europe, how was Europe saved by the Turks stopping the Mongols? If the Mongols didn't care about Europe they wouldn't have invaded, Turks or no Turks.
However, if you're trying to say that the Ottoman culture was more highly developed and their technology more advanced than anything the west had to offer at that time, I'll substantially agree.
You turned suddenly silent after my post #169... was that because you agree with me, or just that you don't have a smarmy, holier-than-thou answer prepared?
Indeed it was, that is the reason that there was so little mention of this in the news.
It's interesting, Velveeta, that you would trust a source like the The Guardian, known for its leftist politics and its disdain for Bible Christians.
The article is, of course, a blatant misrepresentation.
The Pontifical Biblical Commission is reviewing the Biblical texts of Jeremiah and others found in the Dead Sea Scrolls to see if they are of any value in reconstructing the original texts.
As you know, every Biblical text and every Biblical translation from the Septuagint to the King James Bible to the NIV is based on the translators critical judgment of hundreds of fine points of textual criticism.
No two Bible translations are the same - and every Hebrew and Greek edition of the OT and NT are based on blends of many individual handwritten versions of the Scriptures. No two copies of the Bible before the invention of printing have been identical.
One famous example: in 1 Samuel 13:1 all the Hebrew texts say that Saul reigned two years, even though we know from other evidence in the Scriptures that he reigned much longer. The King James Bible changes it to saying that he had reigned two years when the event in question happened in an attempt to make sense out of the passage.
Clearly what happened is that along the way some inattentive scribe accidentally put in the wrong number and that the original text gave the correct one.
The Dead Sea Scrolls may be able to shed light on small textual issues of this kind and all Christian denominations, including Catholics, will probably be modifying their textual research to take account of the DSS evidence.
It's quite funny because for years, the Catholic Church was mocked for taking so long to revise its Scriptural texts in accordance with textual research. Now it's being mocked for taking textual research too seriously.
Any stick will do to beat Catholics with, eh, Velveeta? Even if it's a liberal UK newspaper.
Woody, for crying out loud, I NEVER, NEVER, NEVER said that I don't believe that He died on the cross. What I've said was that I read a book (which YOU have NOT read) and one research hypothesis, BY THE AUTHORS...states that Mary Magdalene may have had a child by Jesus. IF this could EVER be proven to be true, I wouldn't have a problem with it....it wouldn't shake my faith.
Now, you are just blantly lying about what the Vatican is doing in order to justify your beliefs
I'M LYING about a Guardian UK article???? I provided you with the link Woody, did you read the article??
My point with the article was to demonstrate to you that recent discoveries such as the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi scrolls are taken seriously by the VATICAN. The bible will be changed Woody, whatever changes that will include, I have NO IDEA, heck, maybe they'll add the Gospel of Thomas...maybe they'll tone the parts about Mary Magdalene being a prostitute.
I'm ready...are you?
Back in Catholic high school theology class, we spent a term discussing, among other things, whether Jesus had married, including discussing a book entitled "Was Jesus Married?"
In Jewish tradition of the time, the father of a teen was supposed to find a suitable bride and arrainge a marriage for him. The idea of waiting until 30 before getting married is a very late phenomenon. Jesus would have been considered strange if he had not been married. If Jesus had never married, it would have been unusual enough the one would expect some comment to be made in the Gosples about the fact and why.
Is Irenaeus reputable?
I'm getting in over my head here.....but, I'll give it a shot.
1)There were several articles, not just the Guardian UK which have covered this story. If you'd like, I can provide more links for you.
2) Have you seen me beating Catholics? Do you know anything about me? Do you see me judging anyone else's FAITH? Do you see ME calling anyone here a liar?
Al Capone's treasure?
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.