Meh - call it what you will as long as you recognize it.
All humans have this desire to explain their presence in the world, but early man had no way of understanding natural processes.
Yeah…we’re SO much smarter than those near-primates like Aristotle, Boethius and Protagoras, what with our Jerry Springer and all…:rolleyes:
Modernity is so myopic.
Hence the seasons being explained through divine action as opposed to planetary rotation. Hence Jesus ascending into heaven (is he still ascending?). The later doctrine was formulated before our knowledge of space.
…yup…because positively no one would have thought that up could keep going, having never looked at the night sky and all.
Religion is just a way of explaining the world. We all try to explain the world.
True enough, but some ways are better than others. And so far, your way is a bit ridiculous. (No offense intended.)
We dont know the authors of the gospels.
Correction, YOU don’t know the authors of the gospels.
As for Paul’s letters, his status as a learned Jew would make him the perfect person to meld Greek thought and Hebrew legends.
Paul knew Greek thought and was well read.
And Peter? John? Luke? Mark? Matthew? The writer to the Hebrews? If Jesus taught one thing to folks, then Paul showed up and started teaching something completely (or even moderately) different…don’t you think someone might have said, “Yeah…Paul’s different,” or perhaps, “Paul completed the work Christ started.”? But, despite the tons of recorded writings from the period you don’t find that.
…Oh, that’s right. We’ve already established that folks at that time were too dumb to know things like the earth is round and stars are far away. How could they possibly know that Paul’s teaching was different than their beloved Master’s, whom they followed for three years and whose teachings they proclaimed to the point of martyrdom (remember Paul’s profession?).
How could we expect people who were willing to be martyred for their beliefs to (1) know what their beliefs were, (2) recognize when another belief set was different, and (3) object when an outsider came in with an entirely new set of beliefs?
Just read Exsurge Domine (you could check papalencyclicals.net , it dates from 1521 or 1520)
A closing line of that encyclical:
[quote=Exsurge Domine]If they really will obey, and certify to us by legal documents that they have obeyed, they will find in us the affection of a father’s love, the opening of the font of the effects of paternal charity, and opening of the font of mercy and clemency.
I don’t see anything in there about burning. Are we reading the same document?
Also, since you’re throwing around theologically technical words like “infallible” and “doctrine”, you must be smart enough to show me where the requirements for an infallible statement are satisfied in the encyclical and perhaps clarify the difference between dogma and doctrine?
Well, I would say they are false.
And I would say you’re wrong.
That still doesn’t address the basis of why they’re false. Using reason and logic you can demonstrate something to be false. Using a “you came to believe X because…” chain of reasoning is fallacious, and cannot show X to be true or false. That’s my point.
It is interesting to note, however, that there are thousands of Churches all that claim to be Christ’s true church. It is also interesting to see how all those Churches got there.
You must not talk with Catholics often. This is a neat argument against Protestants, but doesn’t work so well against Catholics. We’re all about history and tracing succession back to the apostles. You might try a different tact.