Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Historical Evidence of the events of the NT

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Excelsior
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,203 ✭✭✭Excelsior


    Archeological evidence of what? Empty tombs?


  • Options
    #33
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    robindch wrote: »
    It's come up a few times alright, but christians have a tendency to rubbish the claim, rather than respond to it.

    And it's not some Freudian nonsense either. All the Abrahamic religions require people to believe that sex, menstruation, childbirth and just about everything female is ritually impure. It should surprise nobody that the deity's messenger is supposed to have been delivered by a ritually pure woman.

    I assume you speak about Christians in general here? Well, if there were specific, pointed claims made I would imagine that Christians would show a great deal of interest in the matter. Assuming they knew something on the subject I'd say they would be eager to speak up.

    I rubbish a claim that has no evidential substance. If somebody doesn't bother to back up their claim then it doesn't merit much thought. As for those who do actually bother to discuss theri claims in detail they often consist of 'facts' - a cut and past job - from wholly biased sites.

    As for your second paragraph, PDN has, with his quip, pointed out the inaccuracies better than I. What your point is in posting that news story - beyond cheap digs - I'm not quite sure. Despite this, you conceded that Abrahamic religions, e.g. Christianity, have 'evolved'. With this in mind the claim then that men have an 'inherent fear of the female body' would seem somewhat less factual in light of this statement.

    From the original post's focus on Mary, virginal birth and a perceived negative attitude within Christianity to sex implies that the poster's experience of Christianity would be that of Catholicism. If this is the case - please correct me if I'm wrong - then it should be pointed out that Christianity doesn't = Catholicism.


  • Options
    #34
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Excelsior wrote: »
    The OP doesn't seem to have a problem with the, let's call it day-to-day stuff in the NT, like the idea that there was a fifth gate in Jerusalem or that there was a hill in Athens called after the god Mars.

    Well those details tend not to break every law of physics and chemistry known to man ...

    If someone said they were abducted by a UFO out near Dingle would you consider their story more or less likely because you found that Dingle was a real place on the map?


  • Options
    #35
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Excelsior wrote: »
    Archeological evidence of what? Empty tombs?
    What does an empty tomb provide evidence of?
    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    it should be pointed out that Christianity doesn't = Catholicism.
    But are all strands of Christianity not derived from Catholicism?

    It is not difficult to reach the conclusion that Christianity is sexist, considering that, for example, all the apostles were male - hardly a coincidence.


  • Options
    #36
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    djpbarry wrote: »
    But are all strands of Christianity not derived from Catholicism?

    No, actually they are not. Early Christianity spread very rapidly into many countries from its initial bases in Jerusalem and Antioch. Gradually the Roman Church assumed dominance over churches in the Mediterranean basin, but there were already other churches that never acknowledged the prominence of Rome.

    Many of the prominent distinctives of Roman Catholicism arouse after the Emperor Constantine effected a disastrous merger of Church and State in the 4th Century. Most Western strands of Christianity did indeed break away from Catholicism, primarily because they wanted to get back to Christianity as practiced prior to the development of Roman Catholicism. Therefore to criticise Christianity as a whole for an unbiblical emphasis of Roman Catholicism (the negative view of sex) is manifestly inaccurate and unfair.
    It is not difficult to reach the conclusion that Christianity is sexist, considering that, for example, all the apostles were male - hardly a coincidence.
    It's not difficult to reach any conclusion you want if you are determined enough to reach that conclusion. In fact Paul's epistle to the Romans refers to Junia (a female name) as an apostle. Christianity often reflects the surrounding culture. In Argentina Christianity is Hispanic. In Nigeria Christianity is black. In China the majority of evangelists and pastors in the huge underground church are female. In 1st Century Palestine and many other patriarchal cultures Christianity tended to be male-dominated.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Fanny Craddock wrote:
    Well, if there were specific, pointed claims made I would imagine that Christians would show a great deal of interest in the matter.
    Well, I believe my post makes a fairly specific claim about some of the origins of the abrahamic religions, but as I said above, there are no christians who seem willing to tackle the issue. If you'd like to yourself, I'm sure we could debate it :)
    Fanny Craddock wrote:
    I rubbish a claim that has no evidential substance.
    Well, are you saying that I've not given any evidence that the abrahamic religions regard women as ritually impure? I can certainly do that if you'd like, but I'd have though that the bits and pieces that I wrote in the initial post were well enough understood by most people.
    Fanny Craddock wrote:
    As for your second paragraph, PDN has, with his quip, pointed out the inaccuracies better than I. What your point is in posting that news story - beyond cheap digs - I'm not quite sure. Despite this, you conceded that Abrahamic religions, e.g. Christianity, have 'evolved'. With this in mind the claim then that men have an 'inherent fear of the female body' would seem somewhat less factual in light of this statement.
    Several things here. Firstly (and again), I was referring to the origins of religion, not some of their current forms which are every bit as liberal as, and sometimes more than, the societies they operate in. Secondly, far from "conceding" that religions evolve, the fact that they do is a point that I make regularly. Thirdly, I don't ever recall saying that men fear the female body; the full sociological, political, anthropological (etc) answer is much more complex and much more interesting than that.

    And finally, I was not especially having a cheap dig at christianty in pointing out that Southwestern Baptist story. PDN wrote, with all of his usual energy, that my point about religions' origins didn't apply to him; in reply, I pointed out that not everybody entertains his enlightened view of the role of women. And in the context of this thread, I think that's fair comment.


Advertisement