Maaaaaaaarten said:
Although there's more to be said about the dating]
Can't we assume that 70 (destruction of the Temple) is a terminus ANTE quem for Matthew? The author gives a lot of details of the interior of the Temple that he could not have seen in the ruins.
RetroActive said:
That's (first bolded) a bit of an understatement - Cathars, Waldensians, etc. Brutal.
Man, the Catars claimed that usury was no sin. If you agree with that, fine but then allow me to disagree. The common people supported the repression in their majority. The Cathars' score was settled. They got what they deserve. God Bless saint Lous. End of story.
RetroActive said:
Greed and fear still make the world spin in secular society too.
Why "too"? So okay, I guess you also are a Marxist: "Religion = Opiate of the people." Only rich Bourgeois atheists fear death because they have a lot to lose. And it's impossible to be both a Catholic and a bourgeois. Atheists have transfering their own fears on us. They sure know us better than we do. Pathetic!
Jspear said:
- Peter was married - Popes do not marry. If the first Pope could marry, why later pronounce that no priest (or Pope) can marry?
Pretty poor argument, if you ask me. You can do better, I think. ]This was the rock that the Church of Christ was to be built on.
It's generally agreed, even among Protestant theologians that the rock that Jesus referred to was Peter (Petros in Greek). The name change from Simon to Peter is just a confirmation of this.
Jspear said:
- The Bible clearly declares that Christ is the foundation of the Christian church, insisting that "no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ" (1 Cor 3:11) [...]
- Even Peter himself admitted that Christ is the chief rock or cornerstone (1 Peter 2:7). Peter was just part of the foundation.
Never been disputed by Catholics.
Jspear said:
- There is no indication that Peter was the head of the early church. When the first council was held at Jerusalem, Peter played only an introductory role (Acts 15:6-11). James seems to have a more significant position, summing up the conference and making the final pronouncement (Acts 15:13-21). Also Peter is never referred to as the "pillar" in the church. Rather, Paul speaks of "pillars" such as, "James, Cephas, and John" (Gal 2:9). Peter is not even listed first among the pillars.
??? Peter is Cephas! (John 1:42).
Peter clearly had primacy at the council of Jerusalem. Acts 15:7 says "And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said to them, Men and brothers, you know how that a good while ago
God made choice among us, that the Gentiles
by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe."
There are many other traces of Peter's primacy. So for example in John 21:15-17, Jesus told Peter 3 times: "feed by lambs" "take care of my sheep" "feed my sheep".
Luke 22:31-32 even teaches the Popes infallibility: "And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has desired to have
you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for you, that your faith fail not: and when you are converted, strengthen your brothers."
(the "you" that I have underlined is a plural in Greek, every apostle is concerned but the "you" in "I have prayed for you" is singular, which means the reference is Peter only).
RetroActive said:
Over 2000 yrs. later and you guys are still arguing over the leaven and the bread. It's not as though you were told directly that he was teaching in parables or anything. How many different ways could the guy have told you not to take it literally?
Hurray! Peter got it! Out of the mouth of babes and all that...
Damn! Peter lost it immediately...
Yeah, that's because we don't need culture creation. We have culture, already. Others are ignoramus.
Tank Engine said:
Religion definitely addresses issues that are close to peoples heart and I feel it will last as long as humanity does. I fear a society in which atheism is institutionalised in the state as much as I fear such a state religion (if not more). As for the fruits of religion, they are like the fruits of humanity in general, mixed. When followed in the light of the golden rule, it produces good fruit, but when used in conjunction with power, has lead to abuses.
In our old monarchies, it hasn't really led to abuses, just tampered down abuses by the temporal powers. In a way, acting like present-day human right charities. Serving as a moral justificator at best. Besides, even in the old regime, the Church was oppressed and not oppressive.
But in any case, it does not change the fact that common people have still been religious "in the longue durée", throughout centuries, while the states are no longer. The fact that religion works can be illustrated by an example. Just look at Islam. They have Ramadan. Catholics have Lent. Why? First because fasting is healthy and second because in dearth period you better be able to fast. If doctrines don't work they disappeared, like so many heresies did. But the main universalist religions have survived because they work in daily life.
Tank Engine said:
The Catholic church has in its history acted very materialistically (sale of absolution, the Borgias).
Churchmen did. Not the Church. Religion is a set of principle. Not people. People have their weaknesses.
Anyway, what I meant is that if you are a believer (Christian, Muslim,...) with integrity, you'd be less tempted by consumption for the sake of it then non-believers in their majority. History is there to prove it. You have that in the works of many great American authors such as R.W. Emerson or Orestes Brownson among others.