Catholics are making it up.

Well as an atheist catholic, I beg to differ, I know a lot more that I wish I did, having been indoctrinated into the cult literally since birth.Now why don't you calm down and provide some evidence that my general claim that 'Catholics are making it up' is wrong?Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Misinformation? Everything in that post was fact. Reality is a bitch, ain't it.

hats off to you sir as a fellow Catholic however the pope has not canceled Purgatory it's still in the dogma of the faith. I hope you find better information on your sources before you start threads about our religion is the greatest religion in the world the Pope Francis is doing everything he can to stop the spread of fake news and to proclaim the gospel and and he's doing a good job but it keeps getting misinterpreted because of people spreading this garbageEdited by a servant of Christ, : No reason given.

So what did I get wrong in my OP? SummaryPriests can now forgive women who have had abortions
Priests can be married
Limbo is abolished
Divorced catholics can remarry
You can eat meat on Friday
Contraception is a matter of conscience not sin (unless you're African)

It wasn't the resurrection that got Jesus remembered and attracted followers to Christianity. It was the STORY of the resurrection! Any religion that wanted members had to have some kind of resurrection story of a hero or god that suffered an horrendous death but came back to life even more powerful: Osiris in Egypt, Innana (Ishtar) in Sumer, Eostre of the Anglo-Saxons (whose name gave rise to the Easter celebration of Autumnal rebirth), and, of course, Harold. Painful death and glorious resurrection is just one of the boxes Paul had to tick off for his religion to gain a foothold. Here is a very short list of the many resurrection stories that pervaded the ancient world.Edited by AnswersInGenitals, : No reason given.

However those are all mythological gods, (I have no idea who Harold is), of the various cultures whose rebirth was not witnessed by anyone, nor was it claimed that anyone had witnessed the event.In the case of Jesus we have the accounts of eyewitnesses to an actual physical event, around which they reformed their worldview.

We often go rounds here at EvC Forum regarding religious studies, Spirituality, and, in the case of my involvement, Christianity itself. As the years go by, I find myself studying more and more regarding these piles of books on Theology, Origins of Belief, Philosophy, and of course tangling with my beloved atheist Tangle. As an aside, Chris you might want to turn Charles on to Isaiah Saldivar. He is on point and is one of the most dynamic speakers today regarding contemporary Eschatology and End Times Apologetics. I'm not sure where you stand---you are more reserved, "religious" and in tune with tradition over what some might call sensationalism. I remember years ago I bugged you guys to try and contact me....perhaps I was a bit creepy...but those who know me here in Denver will defend my honor! Hit me up on my FB PageTo you all: I recently have read a good book by Ellis Potter. 3 Theories of Everything. It basically refined my Christian/Spiritual Worldview with a thought provoking talk which incorporated some of the ideas given to me by others which i previously rejected...I recommend checking it out. Tangle won't of course since he is already thoroughly convinced that the God character and the Jesus character are confined to the book! Edited by Phat, : fixed link

No you don't. You have the accounts of anonymous authors, copying from each other, written decades after the alleged event about things that they themselves did not witness.

This is far from conclusive. Why should I trust what only some critics conclude? There is a controversy regarding scriptural inspiration and inerrancy. You are choosing only to believe one side, and by and large I dont trust the motives of these guys.

What ulterior motives would the critics of your dogma have?

Matthew is the least conclusive but was probably written by Matthew the tax collector.
Mark was written by a disciple of Peter most likely John Mark.
Luke was written by a physician who traveled with Paul including spending time in Jerusalem with the Apostles
John was written by a disciple of Jesus either John son of Zebedee but more likely John the Elder as written about by Papias.

Let us note that you admit that two of the Gospels were not written by eye-witnesses and those are - contrary to your claim - those we’re the traditional candidate is least unlikely to be the author.For Matthew let us remember this little gem of yours: Do you want to actually try to defend this, this time? Don’t you realise that it is evidence that the author was not Matthew?

Like I said, they're anonymous. 'Most likely' this and that, means that they are anonymous, unsigned, unattributed. Also copied and written decades after the alleged events by people who were not witness to those events. Let's be honest eh?

I'll answer this in the thread "Authorship of the Gospels"

To understand the viewpoints of the writers of the gospels you can examine their modern day counterparts. I’m quite sure that DJ Trump does not consider himself to be a god, but he is certainly sure that he has god-like wisdom, being smarter than any general, any economist, any epidemiologist, any __________________, and now to have god-like powers over people’s lives. And now look at his chroniclers. These would be his various press secretaries: Sean Spicer, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, and Kayleigh McEneny. If you believe the writers of the gospels to be unbiased and accurate, then you believe Spicer, Sanders, McEneny to be unbiased and accurate.