Liberal Academia Attacks Our Lord And Saviour Jesus Christ Once Again!

P4nthers11 said:

What I will never understand about Christians is how pliable their beliefs can be when it suits them. The Bible is the 100% true word of God...except when it is not. In the case of Catholics, the Pope is the infallible representative of God on Earth when he speaks on church doctrine...except when he isn't. So if church doctrine says X and people who don't follow it are then sinning and die and go to hell, when church doctrine is changed to Y will they then be retroactively cleansed of their sins and sent to heaven? It is all a big joke that people are still looking for evidence of something that occurred thousands of years ago to justify whether priests should get married or what is the role of women in the church. Lets move on people.

Click to expand...

Under Catholic doctrine the only two doctrines that one must believe in order to be Catholic are 1) Virgin Birth and 2) Resurrection

DeaconCav06 said:

Under Catholic doctrine the only two doctrines that one must believe in order to be Catholic are 1) Virgin Birth and 2) Resurrection

Click to expand...

Damn, in that event all those years of religion class in school should have been a lot shorter! In all seriousness though that is only tangentially related to my point. I find it downright silly that (using Catholics as an example) pronouncements by the Pope and the Church's Magisterium are considered infallible and guided by the Holy Spirit. We look back at the Middle Ages and make fun of how monarchs claimed a divine right to rule and benefited from the orthodox belief that they were guided by the Holy Spirit. However, this same outdated superstition persists to modern times. So when the Pope was wrong in the past-- was he divinely inspired or not? Is the Pope infallible? Is the Bible infallible? In my own humble opinion the idea of God and all it entails is just an ever evolving creation of man to fit his own personal needs. Nothing wrong with that.

Deacfreak07 said:

Having diarrhea or morning wood is really part of the human experience that I hope God got to experience when he became man.

Click to expand...

With all the filth and disease they lived in back then everyone probably had diarrhea every day, and no toilet paper to wipe with. Jesus probably gave Roger Charmin the idea for it from experience.

P4nthers11 said:

I didnt click the link on this thread but in the article I read it stated that to carbon date it the amount of ink that would need to be scraped off would destroy the piece. Instead they are going to use a spectrometer or something to date it.

Click to expand...

The question still remains, why didn't they use a more reliable means for establishing the age of the fragment with a hazy and highly questionable known history, than the first impressions of a couple of scholars, who merely said the document "appeared" to be authentic. The experts' reasoning on why they thought so was a bit tortured. In any event, why not make all the possible necessary tests, which she admitted she didn't do, before rushing to print? Consequently, the sloppy scholarship seems obvious. This whole thing smells a bit like the "Hitler Diaries" of the early 1980s. But in that case a popular weekly magazine, Der Stern, hot-to-trot to make lots of money, rushed to print after only superficial "authentication." After more serious tests the diaries turned out to be fakes. This is being done by a world-famous center for scholarship.

See, even Harvard is now saying what I said in my original evaluation of the story: sloppy scholarship. They wont publish the paper until further analysis by papyrus experts and proper, reliable dating of the ink.