"But the angel answered and said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified.He is not here;
for
He is risen,
as He said."
Posted on 03/30/2002 7:53:37 PM PST by malakhi
| Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
Slowly walking to the tomb,
To see Him one last time,
We carried ointments and perfume
To anoint our Lord sublime.
With trembling steps we struggled on,
Our hearts were breaking so,
And then we saw the empty tomb,
Oh, who would stoop so low?
To rob us of one final glimpse,
And strike yet another blow?
Then He stepped out from the shadow,
With a smile upon His face,
A peaceful calm fell on us there,
In the overflow of grace!
I fell to touch His garment,
And praise His Holy Name!
My precious Savior lives today,
I will never be the same!
"But the angel answered and said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified.He is not here;
for
He is risen,
as He said."
It's not a matter of liking it or disliking it. There are two factors to consider: 1) authority and 2) relevance - and in that order. Without establishing authority, there can be no relevance. It is not I that am in an inferior position on this. The inferior position is one that tries to sneak in the door with evidence that is known to be at best troublesome and at worst completely unauthoratative. The problem for you is that much of your early history was fabricated from whole cloth to further political ends. That is a legacy left you by those who went before you. And that is not my problem to deal with. My problem, contrare-wise is to present the evidence as it exists, examine what is layed out in response and hold your feet to the fire when you try to slip in these things that have long since been exposed as error. Why you do it is debateable; but, that you do it at all is disingenuous to me and everyone else here and does nothing to further the conversation. Would you rather have the truth or a well constructed lie? I prefer the truth wherever it leads. And for me, understanding how Catholicism came about is a curiosity, Catholicism has no bearing on my life - spiritual or otherwise. And as you well know, I don't push a brand of religion. I believe in Christianity and the supremacy and exclusivity of the message of God through Christ. You believe in philosophy based on reason with an attempt to either excuse through or blame it upon means that in no way lends support.
All I want here is the truth. And since you guys can't provide it and keep wanting to sell the fables constructed by origen, Eusebius and the like, there is little I can do but examine the facts myself and go where they lead. And in yet another case, we find that the facts bare no resemblance to the official propaganda. That is neither problematic nor embarrasing to me. And you should have iq enough to know that the first lesson of investigation is that evidence is a funny thing. Evidence comes in two types - true and false, or factual and fabricated (or irrelevant). Good investigative technique requires that one cut through the evidence and by process of elimination, detemine what is and is not factual, and thereafter determine what part of that is relevant. That's the joy of watching Matlock, Perry Mason, and Columbo et al. You seem to think that when it's pointed out that you lied on the stand, that your testimony is true and should be heeded. Pointing out that you lied is not problematic to my position. It is problematic to yours. Though it is an interesting tactic to try and shift onus. It is a debate tactic to be sure; but, it's one expected from liars, not truth seekers. So how about some intellectual honesty - it's more befitting this forum.
I do understand your proclivity exists toward saying any historian that exposes fact is biased and in conspiracy against you. The frauds of Eusebius are proven - not speculation - proven. The historians I've read agree on this point that Eusebius was at best untruthful due to ignorance and at worst an outright liar when it comes to his accounts of Constantine. The historical record and the catholic record do not line up. That isn't because the historical record had an anticatholic bias when written by Constantine and those around about him. The proper way of dealing with a liar is to believe from them only what can be adjudicated as true by examination of the facts and trustable sources. And I might note that the passage 'let every word be established in the mouths of three witnesses' does not allow that the witnesses may lie. If the witness is a lie, then the testimony is void. This is basic stuff. Too basic to have to be reminding you of it. But then one shouldn't have to keep reminding you of the factual nature of the frauds which you insist on quoting or sourcing from for authority. You might as well quote the Klintoon and expect us to believe you.
The record just doesn't support the fable propagated by your church. That's not my problem, nor am I bothered by it - beyond the obvious resentment at being lied to. If you can't deal with it, just be honest and say so. You have every right to delude yourself. But it does a diservice to others when your intellectual dishonesty is made public. If on the other hand I've made a mistatment as to fact, I'm happy to entertain discussion on such an issue. This far, I've merely summed what the historians say on the subject and worked the facts. Can you point to something - or are we witnessing rhetoric intended to detract by unsupported and implied accusation. That should be beneath you; but, ...
They were not abandoning their mother, they were abandoning their brother.
Becky
Becky
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.