People who do research accurately look for consistency in historical documentation. Yes the Catholic Encyclopedia does debate the Dec. 25 issue, but it's the only source that does and I would expect it to. (OF COURSE THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA WILL DEFEND CATHOLICISM--DUH)
It seems reasonable that if the Catholic's perspective on the issues I researched were factual, there would be other non-partisan documents to verify, but I couldn't find any. (Not to say there aren't any--but I couldn't find any written by non-partisan authors)
Even you must admit that the Catholic Encyclopedia has some bias. It was written by, for and target to Catholics. That's why it was used heavily as a reference to understand the Catholic perspective.
On the other hand, the majority of the other research documents all confirmed the Dec. 25 issue as I wrote.
You don't get to call BS until you put up some non-Catholic (or non-religious for that matter) historical documentation that supports the Catholic perspective, and read the sources I listed for yourself. (if you want the complete list, I'd be more than happy to give them to you, which includes all 66 books of the Bible in the original Hebrew and Greek)
Works such as Josephus, A survey of Israel's History, Jesus in the Feast of Israel were all penned by authors of various centuries. None of the authors had an anti-Catholic agenda, they just recorded history and quoted/interpreted the Bible.
As I said, I stand by my research but it really doesn't matter, because you are going to believe what you want. So we can agree to disagree respectfully on how history was recorded and scripture interpretations, or we can take this ridiculous bantering and ongoing debate to a PM, and spare everyone else the drama.
Unless you are willing to read the sources I listed in fairness, my only conclusion is that this ongoing debate is about the desire to have the last word. So if that makes you feel better, go for it--have the last word. I have a husband, job, business, home, kids, ministry, and community service projects that need my attention. Enough is enough already.
Oh, and I'd give you the names of the Chicago Archdioces priests who I interviewed, but they could experience retaliation for privately agreeing with my research . It isn't worth putting their careers in jeopardy over a stupid Greek Chat room debate. And I won't compromise my journalistic professional standards to appease anyone, so go ahead and think what you want. I gave my word of confidentiality to them and I intend to keep it.
I won't be checking into this thread anymore because this is ridiculous! My PM mailbox is open for further debate once you've read the sources I listed. Otherwise, the horse is dead and I don't intend to keep beating it.
Quote:
Originally posted by adduncan
I'm calling BS on this.
If you had actually read the Catholic Encyclopedia (all 11K + articles) you would have caught your mistake on the December 25 debacle. The link I posted was to the online version of that reference.
You'd also have better background in YOUR "unfounded accusations". There is a lot of detailed background in the Cath. Ency and you managed to miss it.
For all we know, you're making up the review by "theologians" and anyone from the Chicago Archdiocese. No one worth the ink on their theology degree would back up the numerology-in-the-Bible-predicted-20th-century-history line either.
|