Zergimmi ~~~"InBloom, I am also a Catholic, but I do not believe that I am doing any thing wrong by looking outside the ridgidity of the current teachings of the church, after all There is a vast difference between Christ's teachings and those we have been deemed to be able to learn from, in accordance with the design of our fore fathers some 16 or 17 centuries."~~~

I guess I care too much about what people think...and I shouldn't.

Believers who shoev it down atheist's throats are so much kore annoying than the atheists, so much more disrespectful.

The problem is, many "atheists" (actually, antitheists...there's a difference) denounce the mere MENTION of God or Jesus as "shoving it down their throats". There's a MASSIVE persecution complex among anti theists, who often see the existence of a cross on the side of a highway as "shoving faith down their throat".

I feel no pity. None. And, in fact, the more I encounter them, the more I truly dislike antitheists. they give respectable atheists a bad name.

I'll leave it there, and avoid your other line of attack, the "who is persecuting whom" line, because even if it were possible to make an all-inclusive list of which groups have persecuted others, then none of us, Christians, Muslims, Zoroarastrians, atheists, Hindus, or Scientologists are going to be completely innocent.

good response, myrr.

Baigent isn't much to take seriously, "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" was an amusing read and that was about it. He's been trying to get a bit of Dan Brown's spotlight ever since that awful "Da Vinci Code" book got so popular

......and the Da Vinci Code is awful.

One thing I don't hear anyone talking about especially in lieu of Dan Brown's book is the fact that all the powerful Roman Government had to do to stop the spread of Christianity is to produce a dead body....bones even. That's it and it was never done. So either they were not that powerful (and we all know better) or the story of the resurrection was true after all.

All these other books they keep digging up is nothing but a rouse. Sensationalism sells. I'm just hoping the masses don't fall for this stuff.

Chak you do surprise me.

Chak you do surprise me.

If you mean the bit about Pontius Pilate being a saint, I was a bit surprised to discover it myself. The really interesting thing is that the church in Egypt (Coptic church), according to tradition, was founded by the Apostle Mark in about AD60. Also according to their tradition, their church is the fulfillment of a prophecy of Isaiah "In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar to the LORD at its border." (Isaiah 19:19)

As is well known, Europeans - and later on Americans - sent many missionaries to Africa, often forgetting that some Africans were christian centuries before the faith had penetrated all of Europe. Indeed the christianisation of Europe was partly carried out by African missionaries. The first Archbishop of Canterbury, head of today's Episcopalian fellowship, was the African Augustine of Hippo.

Throughout the period of the carve up of Africa by European powers, the Ethiopians maintained their independence (until Mussolini resorted to gassing) as a Christian nation, whose church was established while most Europeans were still pagans.

Whatever you might think of the theology of these churches - and as a fundamentalist (by your own definition) protestant I'm supposing you won't be too sympathetic - there is little question that these are among the oldest of all the christian churches and there is therefore a good chance that they will have kept alive many of the church's most ancient traditions.

On the subject of Pilate's wife, (Claudia or Procula) who, according to Matthew's gospel warned Pilate after a dream, "Have nothing to do with that innocent man, because in a dream last night, I suffered much on account of him" - she is venerated (not worshipped: disclaimer for the more protestantly inclined ) as a saint by all the Eastern Orthodox Churches.

It's not wrong to be interested in such stuff. Personally, I'm interested in reading those books supposedly written by the apostles, but actually weren't (i.e. Gospel of Thomas, Apocalypse of Peter, etc.). Just remember that these people aren't as intelligent as they claim to be. After all, the argument for Gospel of Thomas being older than the other gospels is that it's simply a list of quotes, and that means it's older, because after all, it's impossible for somebody to make a list of quotes AFTER the gospels of John, Luke, Mark, and Matthew were written! And don't get me started on the Jesus Seminar!

wow..SA...are you sure you're Satan's Advocate!! You better watch out you may just get fired.

Chak,

I'm not too surprised about Pilate actually but can't say for sure either that he converted. I've studied a bit about him. He was put in a hard position..and I believe he was manipulated by the Jewish leaders. He didn't need another bad report sent to Rome about how he couldn't handle the situation at hand. He was already on thin ice with the muckymucks so he did what they wished even tho it went against his better judgment.

Whatever you might think of the theology of these churches - and as a fundamentalist (by your own definition) protestant I'm supposing you won't be too sympathetic - there is little question that these are among the oldest of all the christian churches and there is therefore a good chance that they will have kept alive many of the church's most ancient traditions.

ya, I would agree with you and go to Acts 2:9-11 which says:

"Parthians and Medes and Elamites and the dwellers in Mespotamia, and in Judea and Cappadocia in Pontus and Asia. Phrgia, and Pamphylia in Egypt and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene and strangers of Rome, Jews and proseltyes, Cretes and Arabians we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God."

These delegates above that heard the bold message of Peter went back to their homes and carried it on. I also believe this is where the church of Rome started...not with Peter especially but with these delegates that heard Peter.

Also...and he arose and went and behold a man of Ethiopia an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians who had the charge of all her treasure had come to Jerusalem to worship. Acts 8:27

He also went back and carried the message after hearing the message from Philip and was baptized and shows how far the gospel was spreading.

As far as traditions go, they may have kept some of the original practices, but traditions have a habit of changing even over the years with a few twists and turns as we can see in the oldest of all traditions...the Passover.

I have no problem with traditions as long as they don't violate biblical principles.

I have no problem with traditions as long as they don't violate biblical principles.

With remarkable succintness you've managed to express the great theological difference that divides Catholic/Orthodox Christians from their Protestant brethren ('worship' of Mary, the sacrifice of the mass and the role of the saints being merely secondary issues in comparison). For the 'bible-believing' Protestant, scripture is indeed the infallible guide to the message of Christ and the prophets. The other side might argue they "have no problem with biblical principles as long as they don't violate tradition" on the basis that tradition is older (just) than the Bible. As an outsider it looks to me like a chicken and egg problem.

Coming from the orthodox side, I would say that there is more than meets the eye than just the bible, why, mainly because I believe that there is far more learning than what is t be found in the bible alone, after all the bible is the grouping of many works, and the new testament is the teaching of many but still only include four of possibly thirty Gospels, Many coming from the Gnostics. who where after all Christians, as for arguing which is correct Orthodox or Protestant, I think it really does not matter, what matters is how we carry out the teachings, not whether we get our information from the bible alone or from many historical sources, after all most of what is coming out of these discoveries of much of these findings is of a historic significance more so than of a religious nature, and if we find out that Judas was not the bad guy that he was made out to be , will that really effect the outcome of our faith or will it merely correct some historical discrepancies.
What would be really great, would be if one day the reformist/Protestant and the Orthodox churches were to get over their differences and become one again.

I should add that I have just finished watching the Judas Gospel doco, and it is thought provoking, and rather interesting from a historical view point. Seems as though Judas was not that bad after all.

Of course not all christian churches believed this to be the case anyway, much like the Mary Magdalan stories.

If you mean the bit about Pontius Pilate being a saint, I was a bit surprised to discover it myself.

It is actually a DISTINCT possibility, which is why I find it intriguing. After all, one of the Gospels records the fact that Pilate had the sign over Christ's head written "King of the Jews", and refused to change it when he was asked to change it to "He SAYS he is the King of the Jews". Pilate was also, of course, reluctant to crucify Christ.

I believe that it may have been with foreknowledge of Pilate's impending conversion that Christ forgave His captors.

I hope my significant other remembered to tape the Book of Judas special...I am looking forward to seeing what it's all about (besides the brief summary I saw the other night on tv).

As for the Da vinci code, there are times when I want to read it, and times when I don't feel like going through it.

Seems as though Judas was not that bad after all.

According to who? If you think he wasn't that bad, then what do you say about Jesus calling him the "son of perdition?"

He also said one of the 12 was a devil. He was referring to Judas. What do you say he meant by that? I'm not seeing "good" here.

BTW....when did Judas supposedly write this gospel? Did he write it or did another? If he hung himself as scripture says...when did he write this?

The other side might argue they "have no problem with biblical principles as long as they don't violate tradition" on the basis that tradition is older (just) than the Bible. As an outsider it looks to me like a chicken and egg problem

ya, but how do you know the tradition of today was the same as 1500 years ago? I can tell you many of the so called traditions of the CC were put in practice in the 1800's. Some denominations put tradition and scripture side by side. Others have other writings they put side by side with scripture. There are times when these contradict, and when they do, that's when I side with scripture. The most obvious reason would be I can read scripture today and know it's the same scripture that Jesus was reading at the temple. It hasn't changed.

He went to it time and time again. Why should we do any different?

BTW....when did Judas supposedly write this gospel? Did he write it or did another? If he hung himself as scripture says...when did he write this?

I have not heard of any credible historian who supports the theory that Judas wrote the gospel. Then again, people want to believe he wrote it because they don't like Christianity as it is. In fact, I am positive that if I wrote a book called "The Gospel of Buddha" and even recorded myself on tape writing it down, the same people so quick to support these "gospels" would go: "This truly is the gospel of Buddha because it says what I want to believe is true!" It's like the Da Vinci Code. It totally disregards the gospels that Christians accept, but completely and blindly supports the ones that are not canonical.