Bill O'Reilly

[JoltinJoe]

I have no desire to preach the gospels or save souls here. But when I make simple and correct observations, for example, that Augustine advocated an allegorical reading of Genesis or that Catholics teach and believe in evolution, and then I get challenged by some know-nothing, I then have to take the time to unmask their ignorance.

None of this is necessary. If the peanut gallery here would just making stupid statements, I could concentrate on my day job of doing Satan's handy work.

Joe that is an A+ quality post



Thank you and... nice timing on the punch-line

Thank you.

Here is a video o my lastest court appearance.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/19181/saturda ... ples-court" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[JoltinJoe]

You mean they don't disregard any book of the Bible that wasn't officially approved at the Council of Nicea?

The counclil convened 300 years after the alleged existence of Jesus. 300 years, and they were still editing and writing/creating MAJOR portions of the bible.

*Too bad Galelio and the the countless other scientists, philosophers, freethinkers,Protestants etc. who challenged the church and got murdererd, tortured or ostracized didn't get the memo that the bible is all symbollicky and stuff, and the catholics were reasonable people for 18 centuries.

Historical hyperbole, fanned by anti-Catholics. Why don't they teach your version of history in the history classes?

PS -- The Protestants, by the way, were pretty brutal to Catholics, but they don't include that information on he anti-Catholic websites you frequent.

[D1B]

The counclil convened 300 years after the alleged existence of Jesus. 300 years, and they were still editing and writing/creating MAJOR portions of the bible.

*Too bad Galelio and the the countless other scientists, philosophers, freethinkers,Protestants etc. who challenged the church and got murdererd, tortured or ostracized didn't get the memo that the bible is all symbollicky and stuff, and the catholics were reasonable people for 18 centuries.

Historical hyperbole, fanned by anti-Catholics. Why don't they teach your version of history in the history classes?

PS -- The Protestants, by the way, were pretty brutal to Catholics, but they don't include that information on he anti-Catholic websites you frequent.

Catholic apologist bullshit. You never take responsibility for the atrocious actions of your church.

No religion even comes close to the brutality of the Roman Catholics throughout history, and up to current times with the child sex abuse scandal and cover up. The catholic hierarchy is only interested in power and wealth.

Catholics controlled education, information, publishing and history for 1900 years. The next 1900 will not be kind to you. It's already a nighmare with people leaving the church and no one giving a shit about it either.

[Vidav]

Honest question. Who gets to decide which books are allegory and which are literal? How do they know? Just what they think works out better?

Seems odd that they would get to pick and choose like that.

[andy7171]

Historical hyperbole, fanned by anti-Catholics. Why don't they teach your version of history in the history classes?

PS -- The Protestants, by the way, were pretty brutal to Catholics, but they don't include that information on he anti-Catholic websites you frequent.

Catholic apologist bullshit. You never take responsibility for the atrocious actions of your church.

No religion even comes close to the brutality of the Roman Catholics throughout history, and up to current times with the child sex abuse scandal and cover up. The catholic hierarchy is only interested in power and wealth.

Catholics controlled education, information, publishing and history for 1900 years. The next 1900 will not be kind to you. It's already a nighmare with people leaving the church and no one giving a shit about it either.

Pretty sure the first 300 of those 1900 years we were being fed to the lions.

[JoltinJoe]

Catholic apologist bullshit. You never take responsibility for the atrocious actions of your church.

No religion even comes close to the brutality of the Roman Catholics throughout history, and up to current times with the child sex abuse scandal and cover up. The catholic hierarchy is only interested in power and wealth.

Catholics controlled education, information, publishing and history for 1900 years. The next 1900 will not be kind to you. It's already a nighmare with people leaving the church and no one giving a **** about it either.

Pretty sure the first 300 of those 1900 years we were being fed to the lions.

His version of the other 1600 years really isn't accurate either.

Let's start with the Inquisition. Like many Catholic bashers, D1B fails to distinguish the Spanish Inquisition from the Church Inquisition.

The Church Inquisition didn't resort to torture or execution, but rarely.

The Church Inquisition existed in the early middle ages, but really began to become more active after 1100. This was because civil authorities had begun to criminalize heresy, sometimes even imposing the death penalty for the criminal offense of "heresy." Believe it or not, the Church Inquisition became more active in order to take control over these cases, so as to control and avoid harsh penalties which were being imposed by the civil governments. The Church Inquisition also provided to those charged greater rights and protections so that they could actually mount a defense. The punishments meted out by the Church Inquisition were ecclesiastical in nature.

Also, the Spanish Inquisition, which Catholic bashers try to depict as the whole of the Inquisition, was completely under the control of the Spanish crown. The sanctions imposed by the Spanish Inquisition were state-imposed criminal sanctions, and became notorious for their cruelty.

This wikipedia article actually does a pretty good job discussing the various Inquisitions, the distinction among the various Inquisitions, and underscores the ecclesiastical nature of Church Inquisitions. This isn't to whitewash the Church Inquisition, but only to highlight that true history records that it was never the brutal, torturous interrogation represented by the anti-Catholic websites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Next, we'll discuss the myth that the Crusades were an unprovoked attack on peaceful Muslim populations.

[Appaholic]

Pretty sure the first 300 of those 1900 years we were being fed to the lions.

His version of the other 1600 years really isn't accurate either.

Let's start with the Inquisition. Like many Catholic bashers, D1B fails to distinguish the Spanish Inquisition from the Church Inquisition.

The Church Inquisition didn't resort to torture or execution, but rarely.

The Church Inquisition existed in the early middle ages, but really began to become more active after 1100. This was because civil authorities had begun to criminalize heresy, sometimes even imposing the death penalty for the criminal offense of "heresy." Believe it or not, the Church Inquisition became more active in order to take control over these cases, so as to control and avoid harsh penalties which were being imposed by the civil governments. The Church Inquisition also provided to those charged greater rights and protections so that they could actually mount a defense. The punishments meted out by the Church Inquisition were ecclesiastical in nature.

Also, the Spanish Inquisition, which Catholic bashers try to depict as the whole of the Inquisition, was completely under the control of the Spanish crown. The sanctions imposed by the Spanish Inquisition were state-imposed criminal sanctions, and became notorious for their cruelty.

This wikipedia article actually does a pretty good job discussing the various Inquisitions, the distinction among the various Inquisitions, and underscores the ecclesiastical nature of Church Inquisitions. This isn't to whitewash the Church Inquisition, but only to highlight that true history records that it was never the brutal, torturous interrogation represented by the anti-Catholic websites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Next, we'll discuss the myth that the Crusades were an unprovoked attack on peaceful Muslim populations.

Link from same article:


Regardless of the century, inquisitions were ecclesiastical investigations conducted either directly by the Catholic Church or by secular authorities with the support of the Church. These investigations were undertaken at varying times in varying regions under the authority of the local bishop and his designates or under the sponsorship of papal-appointed legates. The purpose of each inquisition was specific to the outstanding circumstances of the region in which it was held. Investigations usually involved a legal process, the goal of which was to obtain a confession and reconciliation with the Church from those who were accused of heresy or of participating in activities contrary to Church Canon law. The objectives of the inquisitions were to secure the repentance of the accused and to maintain the authority of the Church. Inquisitions were conducted with the collaboration of secular authorities. If an investigation resulted in a person being convicted of heresy and unwillingness to repent punishment was administered by the secular authorities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical ... nquisition

[AshevilleApp]

His version of the other 1600 years really isn't accurate either.

Let's start with the Inquisition. Like many Catholic bashers, D1B fails to distinguish the Spanish Inquisition from the Church Inquisition.

The Church Inquisition didn't resort to torture or execution, but rarely.

The Church Inquisition existed in the early middle ages, but really began to become more active after 1100. This was because civil authorities had begun to criminalize heresy, sometimes even imposing the death penalty for the criminal offense of "heresy." Believe it or not, the Church Inquisition became more active in order to take control over these cases, so as to control and avoid harsh penalties which were being imposed by the civil governments. The Church Inquisition also provided to those charged greater rights and protections so that they could actually mount a defense. The punishments meted out by the Church Inquisition were ecclesiastical in nature.

Also, the Spanish Inquisition, which Catholic bashers try to depict as the whole of the Inquisition, was completely under the control of the Spanish crown. The sanctions imposed by the Spanish Inquisition were state-imposed criminal sanctions, and became notorious for their cruelty.

This wikipedia article actually does a pretty good job discussing the various Inquisitions, the distinction among the various Inquisitions, and underscores the ecclesiastical nature of Church Inquisitions. This isn't to whitewash the Church Inquisition, but only to highlight that true history records that it was never the brutal, torturous interrogation represented by the anti-Catholic websites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Next, we'll discuss the myth that the Crusades were an unprovoked attack on peaceful Muslim populations.

Link from same article:


Regardless of the century, inquisitions were ecclesiastical investigations conducted either directly by the Catholic Church or by secular authorities with the support of the Church. These investigations were undertaken at varying times in varying regions under the authority of the local bishop and his designates or under the sponsorship of papal-appointed legates. The purpose of each inquisition was specific to the outstanding circumstances of the region in which it was held. Investigations usually involved a legal process, the goal of which was to obtain a confession and reconciliation with the Church from those who were accused of heresy or of participating in activities contrary to Church Canon law. The objectives of the inquisitions were to secure the repentance of the accused and to maintain the authority of the Church. Inquisitions were conducted with the collaboration of secular authorities. If an investigation resulted in a person being convicted of heresy and unwillingness to repent punishment was administered by the secular authorities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical ... nquisition

[youtube][/youtube]

[JoltinJoe]

Link from same article:


Regardless of the century, inquisitions were ecclesiastical investigations conducted either directly by the Catholic Church or by secular authorities with the support of the Church. These investigations were undertaken at varying times in varying regions under the authority of the local bishop and his designates or under the sponsorship of papal-appointed legates. The purpose of each inquisition was specific to the outstanding circumstances of the region in which it was held. Investigations usually involved a legal process, the goal of which was to obtain a confession and reconciliation with the Church from those who were accused of heresy or of participating in activities contrary to Church Canon law. The objectives of the inquisitions were to secure the repentance of the accused and to maintain the authority of the Church. Inquisitions were conducted with the collaboration of secular authorities. If an investigation resulted in a person being convicted of heresy and unwillingness to repent punishment was administered by the secular authorities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical ... nquisition

[youtube][/youtube]

Well, this is not from the same article, and this generalization is not completely accurate. For example, the Spanish Inquisition (from which the most negative perceptions of the word inquisition flow) were certainly not with the approval or support of the Catholic Church, at least after its horrors became known. Indeed, the Spanish crown imposed its inquisition expressly for the purposes of suspending and replacing the Church Inquisition in Spain. The Church initially gave its approval to the creation of the Spanish Inquisition, but sought to restrict it after its horrors became known. At that point, the crown convened its own inquisition in or around 1484.

In fact, the Church was deeply concerned by the horror of the Spanish Inquisition, and in 1484, Pope Innocent VII decreed that anyone convicted by the Spanish Inquisition would have an immediate right of appeal to the Vatican. But this was thwarted by King Ferdinand, who decreed that anyone who attempted to appeal to the Vatican would be summarily executed.

[Appaholic]

[youtube][/youtube]

Well, this is not from the same article, and this generalization is not completely accurate. For example, the Spanish Inquisition (from which the most negative perceptions of the word inquisition flow) were certainly not with the approval or support of the Catholic Church. Indeed, the Spanish crown imposed its inquisition expressly for the purposes of suspending and replacing the Church Inquisition in Spain.

In fact, the Church was deeply concerned by the horror of the Spanish Inquisition, and in 1484, Pope Innocent VII decreed that anyone convicted by the Spanish Inquisition would have an immediate right of appeal to the Vatican. But this was thwarted by King Ferdinand, who decreed that anyone who attempted to appeal to the Vatican would be summarily executed.

Spanish monarchs Ferdinand and Isabella requested a papal bull establishing an inquisition in Spain in 1478 in response to the unrest and mob violence against the conversos. Pope Sixtus IV granted a bull permitting the monarchs to select and appoint two or three priests over forty years of age to act as inquisitors (Peters 1988: 85). In 1483, Ferdinand and Isabella established a state council to administer the inquisition with the Dominican Friar Tomás de Torquemada acting as its president, even though Sixtus IV protested the activities of the inquisition in Aragon and its treatment of the conversos. Torquemada eventually assumed the title of Inquisitor-General (Peters 1988: 89).

The main heresy prosecuted during the period of inquisitions in Spain was the alleged secret practice of Judaism among the conversos. From the establishment of the inquisitions up to 1530, it is estimated that approximately 2,000 “heretics” were turned over to the secular authorities for execution in Spain (Kamen 1997: 74). Many of those convicted of heresy were conversos who fled Spain, often to Italy where conversos were not subject to prejudice (Peters 1988: 110).

There were so few Protestants in Spain that widespread persecution of Protestantism was not physically possible. In the 1560s, a little over one hundred people in Spain were convicted of Protestantism and were turned over to the secular authorities for execution. From 1560 to 1599, two hundred more people were accused of being followers of Martin Luther.

The auto de fe that followed trials is the most infamous and misunderstood part of the inquisitions in Spain. The auto de fe involved prayer, a Catholic mass, a public procession of those found guilty, and a reading of their sentences (Peters 1988: 93-94). Artistic representations of the auto de fe usually depict torture and the burning at the stake. These paintings became a major source for creating the violent image popularly associated with the Spanish inquisitions. However, this type of activity never took place during an auto de fe, which was in essence a religious act.

Because the autos de fe officially separate torture and execution and were a positively uplifting experience for all involved, all these events should be considered separate. Although some torture (routine throughout the continent at the time) may have been caused indirectly by the church it is not officially responsible for the murders committed during the inquisition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical ... nquisition

[JoltinJoe]

Well, this is not from the same article, and this generalization is not completely accurate. For example, the Spanish Inquisition (from which the most negative perceptions of the word inquisition flow) were certainly not with the approval or support of the Catholic Church. Indeed, the Spanish crown imposed its inquisition expressly for the purposes of suspending and replacing the Church Inquisition in Spain.

In fact, the Church was deeply concerned by the horror of the Spanish Inquisition, and in 1484, Pope Innocent VII decreed that anyone convicted by the Spanish Inquisition would have an immediate right of appeal to the Vatican. But this was thwarted by King Ferdinand, who decreed that anyone who attempted to appeal to the Vatican would be summarily executed.

Spanish monarchs Ferdinand and Isabella requested a papal bull establishing an inquisition in Spain in 1478 in response to the unrest and mob violence against the conversos. Pope Sixtus IV granted a bull permitting the monarchs to select and appoint two or three priests over forty years of age to act as inquisitors (Peters 1988: 85). In 1483, Ferdinand and Isabella established a state council to administer the inquisition with the Dominican Friar Tomás de Torquemada acting as its president, even though Sixtus IV protested the activities of the inquisition in Aragon and its treatment of the conversos. Torquemada eventually assumed the title of Inquisitor-General (Peters 1988: 89).

The main heresy prosecuted during the period of inquisitions in Spain was the alleged secret practice of Judaism among the conversos. From the establishment of the inquisitions up to 1530, it is estimated that approximately 2,000 “heretics” were turned over to the secular authorities for execution in Spain (Kamen 1997: 74). Many of those convicted of heresy were conversos who fled Spain, often to Italy where conversos were not subject to prejudice (Peters 1988: 110).

There were so few Protestants in Spain that widespread persecution of Protestantism was not physically possible. In the 1560s, a little over one hundred people in Spain were convicted of Protestantism and were turned over to the secular authorities for execution. From 1560 to 1599, two hundred more people were accused of being followers of Martin Luther.

The auto de fe that followed trials is the most infamous and misunderstood part of the inquisitions in Spain. The auto de fe involved prayer, a Catholic mass, a public procession of those found guilty, and a reading of their sentences (Peters 1988: 93-94). Artistic representations of the auto de fe usually depict torture and the burning at the stake. These paintings became a major source for creating the violent image popularly associated with the Spanish inquisitions. However, this type of activity never took place during an auto de fe, which was in essence a religious act.

Because the autos de fe officially separate torture and execution and were a positively uplifting experience for all involved, all these events should be considered separate. Although some torture (routine throughout the continent at the time) may have been caused indirectly by the church it is not officially responsible for the murders committed during the inquisition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical ... nquisition

How is this inconsistent with what I said?

The key point that you're missing is the Pope condemned the Spanish Inquisition in 1483, and the crown "established a state council to administer the inquisition with the Dominican Friar Tomás de Torquemada acting as its president, even though Sixtus IV protested the activities of the inquisition in Aragon and its treatment of the conversos." Or, as I said, the crown suspended and superseded the Church Inquisition in Spain and established its own council. -- which then operated without approval of the Pope.

Also, it was the Spanish Inquisition -- not the Catholic Church -- who turned over the estimated 2,000 heretics to the secular criminal authorities.

Also, take note:

In 1484 Pope Innocent VIII attempted to allow appeals to Rome against the Inquisition, but Ferdinand in December 1484 and again in 1509 decreed death and confiscation for anyone trying to make use of such procedures without royal permission. With this, the Inquisition became the only institution that held authority across all the realms of the Spanish monarchy, and, in all of them, a useful mechanism at the service of the crown.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[89Hen]

Is there anything better than a Wikipedia battle?

[JoltinJoe]

Is there anything better than a Wikipedia battle?

That's part of the problem. wikipedia isn't very accurate.

[Appaholic]

Spanish monarchs Ferdinand and Isabella requested a papal bull establishing an inquisition in Spain in 1478 in response to the unrest and mob violence against the conversos. Pope Sixtus IV granted a bull permitting the monarchs to select and appoint two or three priests over forty years of age to act as inquisitors (Peters 1988: 85). In 1483, Ferdinand and Isabella established a state council to administer the inquisition with the Dominican Friar Tomás de Torquemada acting as its president, even though Sixtus IV protested the activities of the inquisition in Aragon and its treatment of the conversos. Torquemada eventually assumed the title of Inquisitor-General (Peters 1988: 89).

The main heresy prosecuted during the period of inquisitions in Spain was the alleged secret practice of Judaism among the conversos. From the establishment of the inquisitions up to 1530, it is estimated that approximately 2,000 “heretics” were turned over to the secular authorities for execution in Spain (Kamen 1997: 74). Many of those convicted of heresy were conversos who fled Spain, often to Italy where conversos were not subject to prejudice (Peters 1988: 110).

There were so few Protestants in Spain that widespread persecution of Protestantism was not physically possible. In the 1560s, a little over one hundred people in Spain were convicted of Protestantism and were turned over to the secular authorities for execution. From 1560 to 1599, two hundred more people were accused of being followers of Martin Luther.

The auto de fe that followed trials is the most infamous and misunderstood part of the inquisitions in Spain. The auto de fe involved prayer, a Catholic mass, a public procession of those found guilty, and a reading of their sentences (Peters 1988: 93-94). Artistic representations of the auto de fe usually depict torture and the burning at the stake. These paintings became a major source for creating the violent image popularly associated with the Spanish inquisitions. However, this type of activity never took place during an auto de fe, which was in essence a religious act.

Because the autos de fe officially separate torture and execution and were a positively uplifting experience for all involved, all these events should be considered separate. Although some torture (routine throughout the continent at the time) may have been caused indirectly by the church it is not officially responsible for the murders committed during the inquisition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical ... nquisition

How is this inconsistent with what I said?

The key point that you're missing is the Pope condemned the Spanish Inquisition in 1483, and the crown "established a state council to administer the inquisition with the Dominican Friar Tomás de Torquemada acting as its president, even though Sixtus IV protested the activities of the inquisition in Aragon and its treatment of the conversos." Or, as I said, the crown suspended and superseded the Church Inquisition in Spain and established its own council. -- which then operated without approval of the Pope.

Also, it was the Spanish Inquisition -- not the Catholic Church -- who turned over the estimated 2,000 heretics to the secular criminal authorities.

Also, take note:

In 1484 Pope Innocent VIII attempted to allow appeals to Rome against the Inquisition, but Ferdinand in December 1484 and again in 1509 decreed death and confiscation for anyone trying to make use of such procedures without royal permission. With this, the Inquisition became the only institution that held authority across all the realms of the Spanish monarchy, and, in all of them, a useful mechanism at the service of the crown.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's not. Never said it was. Was linking wiki data supporting your statements.

[JoltinJoe]

How is this inconsistent with what I said?

The key point that you're missing is the Pope condemned the Spanish Inquisition in 1483, and the crown "established a state council to administer the inquisition with the Dominican Friar Tomás de Torquemada acting as its president, even though Sixtus IV protested the activities of the inquisition in Aragon and its treatment of the conversos." Or, as I said, the crown suspended and superseded the Church Inquisition in Spain and established its own council. -- which then operated without approval of the Pope.

Also, it was the Spanish Inquisition -- not the Catholic Church -- who turned over the estimated 2,000 heretics to the secular criminal authorities.

Also, take note:

In 1484 Pope Innocent VIII attempted to allow appeals to Rome against the Inquisition, but Ferdinand in December 1484 and again in 1509 decreed death and confiscation for anyone trying to make use of such procedures without royal permission. With this, the Inquisition became the only institution that held authority across all the realms of the Spanish monarchy, and, in all of them, a useful mechanism at the service of the crown.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's not. Never said it was. Was linking wiki data supporting your statements.

Really?

[D1B]

Catholic apologist bullshit. You never take responsibility for the atrocious actions of your church.

No religion even comes close to the brutality of the Roman Catholics throughout history, and up to current times with the child sex abuse scandal and cover up. The catholic hierarchy is only interested in power and wealth.

Catholics controlled education, information, publishing and history for 1900 years. The next 1900 will not be kind to you. It's already a nighmare with people leaving the church and no one giving a shit about it either.

Pretty sure the first 300 of those 1900 years we were being fed to the lions.

Not true. MOF, Catholics were in such disarray with theological bullshit they were killing each other at a far greater rate than catholics were being killed by pagans.

Catholics love to tell this early sobstory of persecution. Makes for good TV too.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

Pretty sure the first 300 of those 1900 years we were being fed to the lions.

Not true. MOF, Catholics were in such disarray with theological bullshit they were killing each other at a far greater rate than catholics were being killed by pagans.

Catholics love to tell this early sobstory of persecution. Makes for good TV too.

who needs an early sob story of persecution... Catholics are still one of the few groups it's apparently okay to go after in THIS country.

Hey D... lemme run this by you... you're an American citizen... ergo you must support giving blankets with smallpox to Indians you genocidal fuck. (this is what you do when you tar all Catholics your brush...)

[D1B]

Not true. MOF, Catholics were in such disarray with theological bullshit they were killing each other at a far greater rate than catholics were being killed by pagans.

Catholics love to tell this early sobstory of persecution. Makes for good TV too.

who needs an early sob story of persecution... Catholics are still one of the few groups it's apparently okay to go after in THIS country.

Hey D... lemme run this by you... you're an American citizen... ergo you must support giving blankets with smallpox to Indians you genocidal fuck. (this is what you do when you tar all Catholics your brush...)

First, fuck off asshole and pay attention. I like the catholic laity. Its the fucks in the Vatican and upper leadership who I detest - the fucks who put the church before people. I aint the only one. Hundreds of christian faiths have split off from the mother church over the ages.

I'm the only one here who truly knows the good the catholics do for our world. So shut the fuck up.

[D1B]

This is evident from a review of the Gospel of John, in which Jesus is consistently accorded titles which imply his divinity. Even when he is approached for his arrest, the officers ask him if he is Jesus of Nazareth. He replies: "I AM" and the officers are said to retreat in fear. (John 18:5-6). This is because when he had been asked to identify himself, Jesus had referred to himself, in Aramaic, as "Yahweh." This name was so sacred that Jews of that era never said this word.

This reference to Jesus as "Yahweh" gets obscured in translation, but John was plainly calling Jesus divine in this account.

The gospel of John, like all the books of the bible is a crock of fictional shit. Joe, how bout some non biblical eyewitnesses? Fuck the bible.

Anyway......and now for the rest of the story... Joe, you admitted in other threads that the authorship of the bible is for the most part unknown and involved hundreds of authors, many Greek. You've also admitted important books of the bible are fiction. That being said...

Currently, most scholars dispute that John the Apostle wrote the text,[29][30][31][32][33][34] although some prominent scholars believe that the community that it was written in could have been founded or influenced by him.[35]

John was reportedly illiterate, virtually precluding him from having written the gospel.[36][37] The Gospel of John is an account composed by an unknown writer who may have never met Jesus.[38] Geza Vermes sees the claim of John's authorship as falsified and not backed by any solid historical evidence.[39] Since the author was fluent in Hellenistic philosophy, he says it could hardly have been John, described in Acts as "unschooled and ordinary."[Ac. 4:13][39] Scholars like Bart Ehrman view the Gospel as a largely historically unreliable written account by an author posthumous to the Apostle who was not an eyewitness to the historical Jesus.[11][12][13][36][40][41][42] Harris argues the traditional identification of the book's author, denoted in the text as the "beloved disciple", with the apostle John is false.[12][42] Scholars who disagree with the traditional view believe it likely that John was martyred around the time James was, as suggested by Mark 10:39 and Acts 12:1-2.[43][44]

There is no consensus in current scholarship as to how far the material in John may derive from a historical 'Disciple whom Jesus loved',[45] but it is broadly agreed that the authorship of the Gospel should be credited to the person who composed the finished text, rather than to the source of material in the text;[46] and that this composition is to be dated around 85-90 AD,[47] a decade or more later than the most likely dates for composition of the synoptics. On account of this later dating, and also of the greater degree of editorial reworking that he detects in John, the Synoptic accounts are often considered to be more historically reliable.[45][48][49] John's picture of Jesus is different than the synoptics,[50] to the point of being largely irreconcilable.[51]

Hm mmmm...a church father, St. Ignatious and Justin Martyr clueless?

The Church Fathers Polycarp, Ignatius of Antioch, and Justin Martyr did not mention this gospel, either because they did not know it or did not approve of it.[148]

[D1B]

His version of the other 1600 years really isn't accurate either.

Let's start with the Inquisition. Like many Catholic bashers, D1B fails to distinguish the Spanish Inquisition from the Church Inquisition.

The Church Inquisition didn't resort to torture or execution, but rarely.

The Church Inquisition existed in the early middle ages, but really began to become more active after 1100. This was because civil authorities had begun to criminalize heresy, sometimes even imposing the death penalty for the criminal offense of "heresy." Believe it or not, the Church Inquisition became more active in order to take control over these cases, so as to control and avoid harsh penalties which were being imposed by the civil governments. The Church Inquisition also provided to those charged greater rights and protections so that they could actually mount a defense. The punishments meted out by the Church Inquisition were ecclesiastical in nature.

Also, the Spanish Inquisition, which Catholic bashers try to depict as the whole of the Inquisition, was completely under the control of the Spanish crown. The sanctions imposed by the Spanish Inquisition were state-imposed criminal sanctions, and became notorious for their cruelty.

This wikipedia article actually does a pretty good job discussing the various Inquisitions, the distinction among the various Inquisitions, and underscores the ecclesiastical nature of Church Inquisitions. This isn't to whitewash the Church Inquisition, but only to highlight that true history records that it was never the brutal, torturous interrogation represented by the anti-Catholic websites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Next, we'll discuss the myth that the Crusades were an unprovoked attack on peaceful Muslim populations.

Joe, dress it up all you want, but back in the middle ages until very recently, the church and the state were one. Everyone involved in the inquisitions was a catholic. Amazing, with everyone catholic, except for a few jews who were murdered and/or kicked to the curb, you'd think they'd be treating people better. Isn't that what Jesus would have done? Some fucking great religion you got there Joe. Killing people in middle ages and raping children in modern times.

[Vidav]

Honest question. Who gets to decide which books are allegory and which are literal? How do they know? Just what they think works out better?

Seems odd that they would get to pick and choose like that.

[Skjellyfetti]

Eventually more will come around to the idea that the whole thing is allegorical.

Of course Catholics decided to abandon their literal interpretation of Genesis and Revelations first. Genesis reads like a fairy tale and Revalations sounds like a bad acid trip. They'll slowly come around on the rest. Staunch conservative Christians are just incredibly slow to change their ways... just give it a couple thousand more years.

[JoltinJoe]

This is evident from a review of the Gospel of John, in which Jesus is consistently accorded titles which imply his divinity. Even when he is approached for his arrest, the officers ask him if he is Jesus of Nazareth. He replies: "I AM" and the officers are said to retreat in fear. (John 18:5-6). This is because when he had been asked to identify himself, Jesus had referred to himself, in Aramaic, as "Yahweh." This name was so sacred that Jews of that era never said this word.

This reference to Jesus as "Yahweh" gets obscured in translation, but John was plainly calling Jesus divine in this account.

The gospel of John, like all the books of the bible is a crock of fictional ****. Joe, how bout some non biblical eyewitnesses? **** the bible.

Anyway......and now for the rest of the story... Joe, you admitted in other threads that the authorship of the bible is for the most part unknown and involved hundreds of authors, many Greek. You've also admitted important books of the bible are fiction. That being said...

Currently, most scholars dispute that John the Apostle wrote the text,[29][30][31][32][33][34] although some prominent scholars believe that the community that it was written in could have been founded or influenced by him.[35]

John was reportedly illiterate, virtually precluding him from having written the gospel.[36][37] The Gospel of John is an account composed by an unknown writer who may have never met Jesus.[38] Geza Vermes sees the claim of John's authorship as falsified and not backed by any solid historical evidence.[39] Since the author was fluent in Hellenistic philosophy, he says it could hardly have been John, described in Acts as "unschooled and ordinary."[Ac. 4:13][39] Scholars like Bart Ehrman view the Gospel as a largely historically unreliable written account by an author posthumous to the Apostle who was not an eyewitness to the historical Jesus.[11][12][13][36][40][41][42] Harris argues the traditional identification of the book's author, denoted in the text as the "beloved disciple", with the apostle John is false.[12][42] Scholars who disagree with the traditional view believe it likely that John was martyred around the time James was, as suggested by Mark 10:39 and Acts 12:1-2.[43][44]

There is no consensus in current scholarship as to how far the material in John may derive from a historical 'Disciple whom Jesus loved',[45] but it is broadly agreed that the authorship of the Gospel should be credited to the person who composed the finished text, rather than to the source of material in the text;[46] and that this composition is to be dated around 85-90 AD,[47] a decade or more later than the most likely dates for composition of the synoptics. On account of this later dating, and also of the greater degree of editorial reworking that he detects in John, the Synoptic accounts are often considered to be more historically reliable.[45][48][49] John's picture of Jesus is different than the synoptics,[50] to the point of being largely irreconcilable.[51]

Hm mmmm...a church father, St. Ignatious and Justin Martyr clueless?

The Church Fathers Polycarp, Ignatius of Antioch, and Justin Martyr did not mention this gospel, either because they did not know it or did not approve of it.[148]

I never said the Apostol John definitely wrote the Gospel attributed to him. In fact, it is largely understood that the Gospels atributed to the authors were written by followers of those authors to whom the Gospels are attributed, based on accounts given by those sources. They have have been written after the death of those sources. Moreover, it is not clear if the "John" to whom this Gospel is attributed was actually John the Apostol. This gospel is written from the perspective of the "disciple that Jesus loved," who is never actually identified as John the Apostol within the Gospel.

The point was that the Gospel of John, which repeatedly accords Jesus titles indicative of a belief in his divinity, dates from the First Century. This was in response to your statement that Christians of the First Century did not believe in the divinity of Christ, and that this belief was first conceptualized at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD.

The Council of Nicea merely formalized in writing a belief that had been consistently maintained since the First Century of Christ's divinity.

Incidentally, it is widely understood that a key source for much of the information in the Gospel of John is Mary, the mother of Jesus, who lived under protection of "the disciple Jesus loved" during the early years of the Church. This would explain the difference of material in John from the other gospels, as the source is from a different perspective.

[JoltinJoe]

His version of the other 1600 years really isn't accurate either.

Let's start with the Inquisition. Like many Catholic bashers, D1B fails to distinguish the Spanish Inquisition from the Church Inquisition.

The Church Inquisition didn't resort to torture or execution, but rarely.

The Church Inquisition existed in the early middle ages, but really began to become more active after 1100. This was because civil authorities had begun to criminalize heresy, sometimes even imposing the death penalty for the criminal offense of "heresy." Believe it or not, the Church Inquisition became more active in order to take control over these cases, so as to control and avoid harsh penalties which were being imposed by the civil governments. The Church Inquisition also provided to those charged greater rights and protections so that they could actually mount a defense. The punishments meted out by the Church Inquisition were ecclesiastical in nature.

Also, the Spanish Inquisition, which Catholic bashers try to depict as the whole of the Inquisition, was completely under the control of the Spanish crown. The sanctions imposed by the Spanish Inquisition were state-imposed criminal sanctions, and became notorious for their cruelty.

This wikipedia article actually does a pretty good job discussing the various Inquisitions, the distinction among the various Inquisitions, and underscores the ecclesiastical nature of Church Inquisitions. This isn't to whitewash the Church Inquisition, but only to highlight that true history records that it was never the brutal, torturous interrogation represented by the anti-Catholic websites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Next, we'll discuss the myth that the Crusades were an unprovoked attack on peaceful Muslim populations.

Joe, dress it up all you want, but back in the middle ages until very recently, the church and the state were one. Everyone involved in the inquisitions was a catholic. Amazing, with everyone catholic, except for a few jews who were murdered and/or kicked to the curb, you'd think they'd be treating people better. Isn't that what Jesus would have done? Some **** great religion you got there Joe. Killing people in middle ages and raping children in modern times.

The church and the state were not one, ad this is evident from the pope's inability to control the excesses of the Spanish Inquisition. Or the pope's inability to prevent Henry VIII from banning the church from England.

Your version of history accords way too much influence to the church over secular governments. The church did not kill people with regularity in the Middle Ages for heresy, as the sources above make clear. Even in modern times, the "child rape" charges overlook that three credible and objective studies have concluded that the rate of sexual abuseby Catholic clergy is not greater, or even lower, than the rate of other clergies. But anti-Catholics have depicted the problem as a "Catholic problem."

The church has made its fair share of disastrous mistakes in times past and modern times, but its historical actions have been largely exaggerated by Protestants who broke away from the Church and which are you primary sources. You don't get your story in a college-level history class. On a serious level, history is taught with greater balance.

[JoltinJoe]

J, this on-line course at Yale may interest you. I've been "taking" classes at Yale two times a week during workouts ...

http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/i ... testament/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There are a number of other course offerings available on-line. You should take a look.