By Daniel Burke, CNN Belief Blog Editor
(CNN) A Vatican spokesman denied reports on Wednesday that Pope Francis is ill, saying that the curtailment of his public summer schedule is common for popes.
"There is no sickness whatsoever," said the Rev. Thomas Rosica, a consultant to the Vatican press office. "If there was, we would be open about that and asking people to pray for him."
Francis made his usual public appearance in St. Peter's Square on Wednesday morning and is planning a trip to South Korea from August 13 to 18.
But the Pope will curtail public appearances in St. Peter's Square during July, as he did last year, and will scale back his daily celebration of Masses at Casa Santa Marta for the summer.
It is customary for popes to vacation during the summers months. Francis, 77, will continue working, Rosica said, while limiting public appearances.
Earlier this month, Francis rested for two days because of "minor indisposition" and tiredness, the Vatican said. Church officials announced the Pope's curtailed summer schedule on Monday, leading some to speculate that he is ill.
The Pope walks with a limp and had part of a lung removed while he was 21 but is otherwise in good health, said Rosica.
Still, some church officials have urged the aging pontiff to cut back on his grueling schedule.
“We have been asking him to have holidays this year,” Honduran Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga, one of the Pope's closest advisers, said during a visit to Washington this month. “Because last year he didn’t and sometimes he’s very tired.”
Francis has also worried Catholic officials by refusing to use the bulletproof Popemobile.
"It's true that anything could happen, but let's face it, at my age I don't have much to lose," he told Barcelona newspaper La Vanguardia.
"I know that something could happen to me, but it's in the hands of God."
The pope is not ill, and you can believe that because the Catholic Church never lies, and they are always right.
"newman, There are over 400 "true gods". Men love to make up gods. You cannot show yours is any different."
There are thousands of gods. I'm sure you're worshipping at least 4. HOWEVER, there is only ONE TRUE GOD- the creator of the heavens and the earth, the aleph and the tav, the Holy One of Israel, the Yahweh Elohim. You get it!
I am not worshipping any gods, that is ridiculous.
Each and every one of the over 400 one true gods followers would make the same lame calim as you. It is a claim based on belief, and nothing more.
90% of what you post is nothing but baseless belief.
Some has to be God. Unless you think there is no "right" and no "wrong". If you don't...that's quite the statement, I think some people may disagree. If you do...how do you know? Did "we" make up right and wrong...then you worship humanity as God. If not, who made right and wrong? Who ever you decide is God.
What is this nonsense?????
Saying that whatever or wherever one thinks "right and wrong" came from means we "worship" that origin is the drivel of cult logic.
Wow, David. That makes no sense whatsoever. I'm thoroughly impressed.
So what you're saying is that without an imaginary friend or the fictional holy book, you wouldn't be able to determine right from wrong on your own? You wouldn't know not to fire the gun at the person who upset you? You wouldn't know enough to stop yourself from cheating on your blow-up doll (you having a wife seems highly implausible)? Or enough not to drag a woman in to the bushes? Or enough to not beat the creaming infant?
Right from wrong is not something that comes from religion. People had morals before your god was imagined by man.
If you can't determine right from wrong on your own, you lack empathy.
So what you're saying is that without an imaginary friend or the fictional holy book, you wouldn't be able to determine right from wrong on your own? You wouldn't know not to fire the gun at the person who upset you? You wouldn't know enough to stop yourself from cheating on your blow-up doll (you having a wife seems highly implausible)? Or enough not to drag a woman in to the bushes? Or enough to not beat the screaming infant?
Right from wrong is not something that comes from religion. People had morals before your god was imagined by man.
If you can't determine right from wrong on your own, you lack empathy.
@TruthPrevails1-"So what you're saying is that without an imaginary friend or the fictional holy book, you wouldn't be able to determine right from wrong on your own?" No, I am saying the opposite. From where did you get this right or wrong notion? Evolution? Big problem. Evolution is unconcerned with moral truth. It is only concern with gene pool survival. You can clearly see this in nature. It is not even concerned with reality. Only with survival. If all we are is material you would never know the concept of "right" or "wrong". So where did it come from? Must be either from 'Outside" or "inside". Outside means not you (God). Inside means you, and you are God.
Societies evolve. That's quite a bit more complex than "Inside means you, and you are God" (and this notion of yours is pretty ridiculous really seeing that atheists don't worship any gods). What is your definition of right and wrong? I think if you were clear on what you're trying to sell, many wouldn't buy it other than to say it's conjecture. If you're honest, I believe the adjective you need to add that best describes your product is "objectively" (as in "divinely"). So the big problem is that you're trying to put the cart before the horses. Unless you can prove the existence of your God, I think I can fairly say that you too are obtaining your morals in the same subjectively-influenced, opinionated manner as them, only under the guise of something that represents an unsubstantiated source.
And really, can't we just look across the different denominations of various religions to clearly see the evidence of the subjectively-influenced, opinionated views on morality?
Your appeal to evolution is not viable. Evolution is not concerned with moral truth. It is concerned with survival. It has no concern or knowledge of "right" or "wrong". Saying "society evolves" will not make it so. By what method do you pretend to call on that says an intelligence outside of our reality can not be proven by the phenomena of morality? Why? You are showing your own agenda. Appealing to differences in interpretation of morality by different denominations does not help you case either.
davidmer: "Your appeal to evolution is not viable. Evolution is not concerned with moral truth. It is concerned with survival. It has no concern or knowledge of "right" or "wrong". Saying "society evolves" will not make it so."
Note, david, that I said evolve. I was not using that specifically with regard to natural evolution – although some would argue that social evolution has been affected by factors such as brain size. But what it quite obvious are many other factors across human history – the gradual reduction of physical and communication boundaries between isolated pockets of different kinds of people is an example. Societies do wrestle with what is "right" and "wrong" – and hopefully a particular society in question does so through individual representation.
davidmer: "By what method do you pretend to call on that says an intelligence outside of our reality can not be proven by the phenomena of morality?"
lol. Nice try to switch that around – but sorry, david. You seem to be the one with the claim for both God (the god of Abraham I'm assuming) and its attributes (source of moral law). Your answer is mere avoidance. Demonstrate your god, and then maybe the attribute claims might be reasonable. Also, how can you prove an intelligence outside of reality via your claim of the "phenomena" of morality? –can you demonstrate such a type of objective "truth" without resorting to subjective means?
davidmer: "Appealing to differences in interpretation of morality by different denominations does not help you case either."
I think it does. If moral "truths" were absolute and divine, they shouldn't conflict with one another, unless many denominations are wrong and one is right. (lol – and we know that what many of them claim, right?)
Correction of last line of my last post:
(lol – and we know that's what many of them claim, right?)
davidmer: Did I mention evolution? Evolution has little to do with morals. You implied that for us to know right from wrong we need a god. You further implied that if we humanity god. Both of your implications are false. Christians tend to think that without an imaginary friend morality ceases to exist and that is ludicrous.
Don't put words in ones mouth, doing so only shows your ignorance.
correction: "You further implied that if we humanity god"
should read: You further implied that we worship humanity as god.
You seem to be labeling things as god that simply do not merit the label. Now if you're going to attempt to speak on a matter, try to educate yourself about it before making yourself sound like a complete buffoon as you have done here.
you need to read the scriptures because you are terribly misguided.
one is not made righteous because of anything they do, one is made righteous because of Jesus' righteousness. Jesus' righteousness is imparted to those who believe on and trusts in Him.
how can believing one is made righteous be a dangerous thing? – you have no idea what you're talking about. seriously, I don't blame you, you're religious and don't even know it.
listen, it's your business whether or not you need a shepherd. Jesus the good shepherd still loves you and died to make you righteous and holy before a Holy and Righteous God; YOU, just don't come here "advertising YOUR baseless, [ungodly] belief system."
scriptures literally means someone wrote it down. This is scripture.
Everything else you said is simply belief, and I see no logical reason to the belief. I see errors throughout the bible, indicating it is nothing more than the product of ignorant men's imaginations.
You need to put your book down, and stop acting as if your belief is truth.
scripture means sacred text/writings.
and duh! of course someone wrote down the words narrated to them by the Holy Spirit.
hmm, so, you're more knowledgeable than Jesus Himself who used the very words of scriptures – you know, those texts/writings written down by men, Jesus had no problem with not a single word of scripture, He saw no contradictions in them, and used scripture- you know, the one written down by men, to defeat the devil.
if you were wise you'd meditate on this.
no newman, scripture literally means something that is written down. The christians have attempted to change the meaning of the word, as they have done with many words.
You have stories of Jesus, but none of the supernatural claims can be verified, including the devil stories.
Much of what Jesus allegedly said was taken right from the Buddha who taught those things 400 years earlier.
You are making a huge leap to assume that YOUR god is the right one out of the thoudsands men have made up. There are over 400 one true gods, and all believers of each of those gods would defend their belief just as you have, but you are calling all of them liars.
There is every indication that every god ever worshipped is nothing but the product of men's imaginations.
I hope you find reality...you really need it.
keep your beliefs and I am delighted to keep mine. just don't come trolling my posts because you do like my belief.
new-man: "Jesus Himself who ALLEGEDLY used the very words of scriptures – you know, those texts/writings written down by men, Jesus ALLEGEDLY had no problem with not a single word of scripture, He ALLEGEDLY saw no contradictions in them, and ALLEGEDLY used scripture- you know, the one written down by men, to ALLEGEDLY defeat the devil."
There, that's better...
THE NEW JERUSALEM
For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in,
Is there a point to this spam?
What does this have to do with the article?
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day.
Teach a man to fish and he eats for his whole life.
Give a man religion and he dies of starvation while praying for fish.
having a relationship with God the Father, Jesus His Son and the Holy Spirit is not religious. It's everlasting life.
Jesus was never religious.
Most of you unbelievers on this board are some of the most religious people I've 'seen'.
I see new-man fancies himself the authority on his god's intentions and thoughts. Sure sign of pompous-a.rsed delusion.
Says someone trolling 3 hours after the fact.
here, miss doris, go stew on this:
For who has known or understood the mind (the counsels and purposes) of the Lord so as to guide and instruct Him and give Him knowledge? But we have the mind of Christ (the Messiah) and do hold the thoughts (feelings and purposes) of His heart.
it's quite understandable why you post the uninformed nonsense you do- you have no relationship with the Holy One of Israel; you who have no legs to stand on when it comes to the mind of Christ and one's identi.ty in Christ so go take a seat.
Oh so you found some words from Paul to make you think you understand your god's mind? Terrific. Paul who? Oh yeah, that one. It's a shame we don't have a firm confirmation of Paul's words as divine scripture – you know, since Peter, according to most NT scholars, did not author Peter 2 where Peter allegedly gives that "blessing" of Paul's works....
"since Peter, according to most NT scholars, did not author Peter 2 where Peter allegedly gives that "blessing" of Paul's works...." Doh-rus, you've been parroting this crap for so long and haven't produced one shred of evidence; because there is no evidence contradicting authorship. the fact is that there was virtually no criticism of ANY of the epistles until the 18th century when the antichrist surged. virtually all of the early church fathers had no problems at all with the authorship of the letters to the congregations. In terms of theme, style, and substance there is no doubt about who authored the epistles. you're just part of the antichrist crowd trying to discredit the bible. we don't believe your crap so run along heathen mutt.
Another poster child for Atheists...thanks, scotty.
What would Jesus do? (And we're not talking about your militant, conservative, angry, white version).
"the fact is that there was virtually no criticism of ANY of the epistles until the 18th century when the antichrist surged. virtually all of the early church fathers had no problems at all with the authorship of the letters to the congregations."
the fact is there was little criticism because there was little independent investigation. of course the early church fathers wouldn't do themselves in by admitting this obvious set-up to meet a canonical objective. I'm not the one you should be asking for evidence. You should be addressing that question to most NT scholars who have reasons to think it's unlikely that Peter authored Peter 2.
it's a play on the simpson's "doh", so what.
Thou shalt not lie, scotty. Shame, shame.
a) even Peter does not pretend that the actual writing was done himself but this in no way challenges the authorship
b) the substance of both letters contain exhortations and reminders very similar and both reflect the speeches he gave in the book of Acts
c) there were both similarities and differences between his letters and Paul's letters. Differences are evident that Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles and Peter was the apostle to Messianic Jews.
d) as the Bishop of Antioch of course Peter would have had discourse with Jude as with all the apostles and disciples and it would be reasonable to expect that he would share his views with them and vice-versa.
e) there is prima facie evidence that Peter did in fact write these letters, in Galatians 2:11 Paul had this to say about Peter. "Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed". this statement was contained in a letter to the churches of Galatia, churches that had already been established and with whom Paul had communication. Galatians was written between 48 and 49 AD in the time frame of Paul's 1rst missionary journey.
Peter's 2nd letter to the churches contained the following statement concerning Paul.
"and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation, as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. -2 Peter 3:15-16, NKJV
Peter's martyrdom took place between 64 and 66 AD, plenty of time between then and 48-49 AD when Paul wrote his 1rst epistle to the Galatians. i would challenge any of these so-called scholars to dispute these dates.
let me tell you something about Christ since you obviously don't know Him like i do. He was not this wimpy preacher man that you suppose, he was a real man amongst ordinary men.
Jesus therefore, knowing all things that would come upon Him, went forward and said to them, "Whom are you seeking?"
They answered Him, "Jesus of Nazareth." Jesus said to them, "I am He." And Judas, who betrayed Him, also stood with them. Now when He said to them, "I am He," they drew back and fell to the ground. – John 18:4-6, NKJV
"they drew back and fell to the ground" – did you get that? a maniple of armed Roman troops and my Lord knocked em all on their collective asses. next time you hear something about my Lord, you think about this, now run along little heathen dog.
Snotty: "when Paul wrote his 1rst epistle to the Galatians. i would challenge any of these so-called scholars to dispute these dates."
Who's challenging dates or Peter 1? Where in Peter 1 does he designate Paul's works as divine truth? Good job at side-stepping the issue of the authorship of Peter 2.
you seem to have a real problem with reading comprehension, so i will repost for the that particular thought.
there is prima facie evidence that Peter did in fact write these letters, in Galatians 2:11 Paul had this to say about Peter. "Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed". this statement was contained in a letter to the churches of Galatia, churches that had already been established and with whom Paul had communication. Galatians was written between 48 and 49 AD in the time frame of Paul's 1rst missionary journey.
Good grief, Scotty. You're making a loose connection between Galatians and Peter, but you are not showing that Peter authored the letter Peter 2. Is that the best you can do?
Maybe this will help you:
Raymond E Brown and Bart Ehrman (that truthfollower01 uses as a source above), among others, state that most biblical scholars have concluded Peter is not the author, and consider the epistle pseudepigraphical.  Reasons for this include its linguistic differences from 1 Peter, its apparent use of Jude, possible allusions to 2nd-century gnosticism, encouragement in the wake of a delayed parousia, and weak external support.
3. Brown, Raymond E., Introduction to the New Testament, Anchor Bible, 1997, ISBN 0-385-24767-2. p. 767 "the pseudonymity of II Pet is more certain than that of any other NT work."
4. Erhman, Bart (2005). Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. Harper Collins. p. 31 "Evidence comes in the final book of the New Testament to be written, 2 Peter, a book that most critical scholars believe was not actually written by Peter but by one of his followers, pseudonymously.". ISBN 978-0-06-182514-9.
5. Grant, Robert M. A Historical Introduction To The New Testament, chap. 14.
"Most conservative evangelicals hold to the traditional view that Peter was the author, but historical and literary critics have almost unanimously concluded that to be impossible.
The rejection of Peter as the writer of 2 Peter is by far the most common opinion today. In fact, the view of the pseudonymity of the epistle is almost universal.
The history of the acceptance of 2 Peter into the New Testament canon has all the grace of a college hazing event. This epistle was examined, prayed over, considered, and debated more than any other New Testament book—including Revelation."
Michael J. Kruger, “The Authenticity of 2 Peter, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 42.4 (1999):
"J. N. D. Kelly in his commentary on 2 Peter confesses that 'scarcely anyone nowadays
doubts that 2 Peter is pseudonymous.'  Indeed, from the very start this epistle has had a difficult journey. It was received into the New Testament canon with hesitation, considered second-class Scripture by Luther, reluctantly accepted by Calvin, rejected by Erasmus, and now is repudiated as pseudonymous by modern scholarship. Joseph B. Mayor agrees with the current consensus when he declares that 2 Peter “was not written by the author of 1 Peter, whom we have every reason to believe to have been the Apostle St. Peter himself .... We conclude, therefore, that the second Epistle is not authentic.” 
"The argument against the authenticity of 2 Peter turns on three main problems: (1) problem of external attestation in the early church; (2) stylistic and literary problems with 1 Peter and Jude; and (3) historical and doctrinal problems that seem to indicate internal inconsistency and a late date. Undoubtedly, 2 Peter has a plethora of problems. Most scholars believe its path towards canonical status was littered with pitfalls and detours for good reason."
1. J. N. D. Kelly,
A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and of Jude
(London: Adam & Charles Black, 1969) 235.
2. Joseph B. Mayor,
The Epistles of Jude and II Peter
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979) cxxiv.
The third time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love me?" Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you." Jesus said, "Feed my sheep.
THE NEW JERUSALEM
Death Through Adam, Life Through Christ
12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—
13To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.
15But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!
18Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
20The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Be nice to Adam – it wasn't his fault.
"Sin began with a woman and thanks to her we all must die"
– Ecclesiasticus, 25:19
It was Eve who listened to the talking serpent and ate the magic fruit so that humans were no longer immortal.
But it is a good thing that God fathered Himself to He could sacrifice Himself to Himself to get rid of the curse of the awareness apple.
in trying to mock scripture, you only show yourself lacking in understanding.
who is the "us" and "our" in Gen 1:26 And God said, Let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness.
Looks like there are multiple gods referenced in the Bible, which said not to worship the other ones.
that is true; however that's not what's referenced above.
And God [Elohim] said, ... So God [Elohim] created man in his own image, in the image of [Elohim] created he him; male and female, created he them.
And the LORD God [Yahweh Elohim] formed man of the dust of the ground.
Do you see the difference in the natures of God.
you and i know Him since we have His spirit, but the world does not know Him, indeed cannot know Him since they are spiritually dead; one who is dead cannot see, hear, think, or speak. but yes to your point, 'us' and 'our' cannot refer to angels or any other created being. the carnal mind cannot fathom the concept that a spiritual family member could possibly incarnate as a being created in that very image of God. they'll readily believe the future science of star trek and yet deny the existence of their creator. they will not escape judgment for their evil disbelief.
the "gods" and "going after other gods" referred to those who were not really even gods. it refers to demons or "angels of destruction" who deceived mankind into believing they were gods. these demons or angels of destruction, God also allowed to execute His wrath and judgment.
He cast on them the fierceness of His anger, wrath, indignation, and trouble, by sending angels of destruction among them – Psalms 78:49.
the Lord has also at times destroyed demons when his wrath has been incurred. one famous example was with the 10th plague against Egypt sometimes overlooked because of the enormity of His judgment in killing all firstborn in Egypt.
"For I will pass through the land of Egypt on that night, and will strike all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the Lord." – Exodus 12:12, NKJV
"against all the gods of Egypt" was the destruction of these evil spirit beings we call demons.
Snotty: "you and i know Him since we have His spirit, but the world does not know Him"
LOL – ah yes – just like two little girls having tea with their imaginary friend....too funny
actually it was not eating of the 'tree of life' (immortality) that got them into trouble and precipitated the fall; it was eating from the 'tree in the midst of the garden' in direct disobedience to God that brought the fall; they did this because they were told they "would become like God". the whispering of a being who had already tried to exalt himself above God and the father of the lie did this. the woman was deceived but the man should have known not to believe the lie, they both rebelled against their creator.
great point scot,
and it is this "tree of life" wisdom that is still being rejected to this very day.
"Wisdom is defined by the scriptures as a tree of life and the scriptures also tell us that there was a tree of life in the garden."
She [Wisdom] is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her: and happy is every one that retaineth her. Pro 3:15-18
"In the beginning, Adam was created in the image of God and lived in a dimension in which every herb and tree was for meat and it was "very good". There were no
limitations of time – everything was in the now of spirit and not limited.
Then Adam became enamored of his own beauty and began to consider choices outside of a oneness with God. God gave him a will (soul) and placed him in a garden
of choices. While Adam could have created in God's realm with the feminine Wisdom, he was also given a choice of a lower realm of the good and evil of his own vain
imaginations. Turning his back on the pure virgin of Wisdom, he began to pursue his own conceptions and turn toward a lower realm frozen in the limitations of time. He
walked away from the very presence of God and became alone as he followed the vain imaginations of his own mind.
Seeing that Adam had walked away, the Lord God said "It is not good for man to be alone, I will make him an help meet for him."
So Adam was placed in the deep sleep of the limitations of time and that which he lusted after in his mind became reality. So Adam (as he himself said) had received
"flesh of my flesh".
Adam did not want to be a co-creator with God in the name of God- he wanted to created his own flesh in his own name. Then God said, that for this cause, Adam had left
his mother and father (the very Elohim of the El Shaddai and Yahweh of the Godhead) and entered into the "one flesh" of an earthly, fleshly marriage. Nevertheless, God
warned that this relationship not be put asunder by adultery.
At first, as children before puberty, they were not ashamed – until the reality of their condition became manifest and they were ashamed and naked – even attempting to
cover up with fig leaves. However, do you think that Adam was really surprised or even deceived about this – he go what he desired (1Tim 2:14)? The woman did what
he had already imagined her to do in his previous imaginations. She became fair game for the serpent mind that had already influenced Adam.
This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work. But the wisdom that is
from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.
"As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease."
Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.
No evidence of jesus doing anything. Anything written about the man was done so 30-40 years after he died making the stories unreliable and you gullible for accepting them. Ignorance must truly be bliss in your land of oblivion.
So...Aquinas, Merton, Stravinsky, Tostroy, Lewis, Tolkin, Polinkinghorne, Collins, and countless etc's. are " gullible and ignorant" ? Let's not start name calling. Your premise that "anything written about (a) man was done so 30-40 years after he died making the stories unreliable", unsupported by evidence. It would certainly exclude from existence most of the historical figures of antiquity, including Alexander and Julius Caesar. Your arguments are not strong.
Alexander and Julius Ceaser's contemporary enemies wrote about them plus the numerous other historians at the time of the events, and other cooberating evidences (coins, statues, ect.).
this is pure ignorance of history. Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed by the Romans in 70AD. the prophesies of Christ and His apostles made reference to this event many times. try actually reading the bible sometime.
@Snotty: prophesies? LOL – rubbish. Your theft of the meaning of Isaiah and other has been noted here time and time again. That's not evidence, dufus.
@davidmer: who goes looking to Merton, Tolkin, etc to prove that someone performed supernatural feats?
ummm....what are you talking about? Point: these people are not "ignorant of gullible". Read the whole post before you comment.
awanderingscot: Sorry it seems you fail to look outside your book or anything that pertains to it for answers. Biblical prophesies have been shown to be wrong and that has been pointed out to you numerous times here, the fact that you choose to ignore that is evidence of your ignorance.
davidmer: "Read the whole post before you comment"
This is a public blog, people will comment where they see fit...sorry if that hurts your feelings. In regards to your comment above...are people trying to get others to believe that those others sided for their 'sins'? So maybe you should do some research outside of your book of fairy tales before you attempt intelligence on the matter.
"Your theft of the meaning of Isaiah and other has been noted here time and time again."
prove it loudmouth.
"Biblical prophesies have been shown to be wrong and that has been pointed out to you numerous times here,"
ok, so what prophesy has been shown to be wrong? name just one loudmouth.
"In that day shall five cities in the land of Egypt speak the language of Canaan, "
– Isaiah 19:18
The language of the Canaanites, aside from now being long extinct, was never spoken in Egypt.
TOT: A lesson in manners is in order...register for one.
"Nile will dry up
Ezekiel 30:12 continues with a prediction that the Nile River will run dry.
I will dry up the streams of the Nile and sell the land to evil men; by the hand of foreigners I will lay waste the land and everything in it. I the LORD have spoken. (NIV)
There is no evidence that this has happened in recorded history. "
Numerous others (of course you lie and say these are false) can be seen here: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Failed_biblical_prophecies
Oops seems as always you are wrong!
"you can't handle the truth!" concerning the Nile:
'Today’s demands for water are such that there is little left of the river when it eventually empties into the Mediterranean.'
Leave it to awanderingscot to use a source clearly labeled as "OPINION".
lol , i quote directly from Josephus' book, you quote from wiki.
the Egyptian cities of Memphis, Tanis, Alexandria, Bubastis, and Heliopolis all fell under the influence of Jews during the reign of the Ptolemaic dynasties from 300BC to 30BC. you should stick with your punk rock delusions and leave history for the big boys.
The languages used in Egypt during the Ptolemiac Empire's period were Greek and Demotic Egyptian.
SRC: "Et Maintenant ce no sont plus que des villages...
Thebes et sa Region aux Epoques Helleneistiques, Romaine et Byzantine"
– Alain Delattre (Association Egyptologique Reine Elisabeth)
aramaic hebrew was spoken by the Jews who fled there ahead of the conquering king Nebuchadnezzar. this was prior to the Greek generals coming. again, please stick with your punk rock delusions since you really don't know history.
'Woe to those who go down to Egypt for help, and rely on horses, who trust in chariots because they are many, and in horsemen because they are very strong, but who do not look to the Holy One of Israel, nor seek the Lord! – Isaiah 31:1
A handful of itinerant Jews didn't change the linguistic landscape of entire cities.
Historical records from the era are not written in hebrew.
you don't know what you're talking about. in fact most historical writings were written after the fact hence 'historical'. case in point the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus. he wrote all of his surviving works after his establishment in Rome around 70-71 AD while under the protection of the Flavian Emperor Vespasian. In his book Antiquities of the Jews in chapter 18 commonly known as the Testimonium Flavianum, Josephus recounts the condemnation and crucifixion of Jesus at the hands of the Roman authorities. quit your blathering when you don't know what you're talking about.
"quit your blathering when you don't know what you're talking about."
You might wish to heed your own advice the next time you attempt to converse about evolution!
from the historian Josephus' book Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3, the following concerning Christ –
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
The Testimonium Flavianum (meaning the testimony of Flavius Josephus) is the name given to the passage found in Book 18, Chapter 3, 3 (or see Greek text) of the Antiquities in which Josephus describes the condemnation and crucifixion of Jesus at the hands of the Roman authorities. The Testimonium is likely the most discussed passage in Josephus and perhaps in all ancient literature.
The earliest secure reference to this passage is found in the writings of the fourth-century Christian apologist and historian Eusebius, who used Josephus' works extensively as a source for his own Historia Ecclesiastica. Writing no later than 324, Eusebius quotes the passage in essentially the same form as that preserved in extant manuscripts. It has therefore been suggested that part or all of the passage may have been Eusebius' own invention, in order to provide an outside Jewish authority for the life of Christ. Some argue that the wording in the Testamonium differs from Josephus' usual writing style and that as a Jew, he would not have used a word like "Messiah". For attempts to explain the lack of earlier references, see Arguments for Authenticity.
Quote the Testimony of Josephus regarding Hercules.
After all, it must be true because Josephus wrote about it.
Josephus is flawed as a source.
please quote source, book, chapter, etc innuendo doesn't count for anything.
Ok. I'll find it myself.
THE NEW JERUSALEM
12“As surely as the Lord your God lives,” she replied, “I don’t have any bread—only a handful of flour in a jar and a little olive oil in a jug. I am gathering a few sticks to take home and make a meal for myself and my son, that we may eat it—and die.”
13Elijah said to her, “Don’t be afraid. Go home and do as you have said. But first make a small loaf of bread for me from what you have and bring it to me, and then make something for yourself and your son. 14For this is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘The jar of flour will not be used up and the jug of oil will not run dry until the day the Lord sends rain on the land.’ ”
THE NEW JERUSALEM – body of Christ The Lord – Christ the Lord. King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Son of the Holy one of Israel.
8“For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the Lord.
9“As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.
10As the rain and the snow
come down from heaven,
and do not return to it
without watering the earth
and making it bud and flourish,
so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater,
11so is my word that goes out from my mouth:
It will not return to me empty,
but will accomplish what I desire
and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.
12You will go out in joy
and be led forth in peace;
the mountains and hills
will burst into song before you,
and all the trees of the field
will clap their hands.
13Instead of the thornbush will grow the juniper,
and instead of briers the myrtle will grow.
This will be for the Lord’s renown,
for an everlasting sign,
that will endure forever.”
You have quite a few psalms, psongs and psonnets from the ancient Middle Eastern Israelites, waxing rhapsodic about their fantasy being.
THE NEW JERUSALEM
God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?
Every single person who thinks god is real, imagines god differently than anyone else. The biggest problem for believers is no one can show that any gods exists OUTSIDE of the imagination.
THE NEW JERUSALEM – body of Christ The Lord – Christ the Lord. King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Son of the Holy one of Israel.
1Why do the nations conspirea
and the peoples plot in vain?
2The kings of the earth rise up
and the rulers band together
against the Lord and against his anointed, saying,
3“Let us break their chains
and throw off their shackles.”
4The One enthroned in heaven laughs;
the Lord scoffs at them.
5He rebukes them in his anger
and terrifies them in his wrath, saying,
6“I have installed my king
on Zion, my holy mountain.”
7I will proclaim the Lord’s decree:
He said to me, “You are my son;
today I have become your father.
and I will make the nations your inheritance,
the ends of the earth your possession.
9You will break them with a rod of ironb ;
you will dash them to pieces like pottery.”
10Therefore, you kings, be wise;
be warned, you rulers of the earth.
11Serve the Lord with fear
and celebrate his rule with trembling.
12Kiss his son, or he will be angry
and your way will lead to your destruction,
for his wrath can flare up in a moment.
Blessed are all who take refuge in him.
a 1 Hebrew; Septuagint rage
b 9 Or will rule them with an iron scepter (see Septuagint and Syriac)
All of these "thum-ptations have been "kiboshed in past commentaries. Google for these if interested.
"Google for those interested" ....premise: Google=Truth. Well, I think it equals the truth you want to find.
Google or Bing or Yahoo "Reality CNN Belief blog kibosh" to see my previous comments on putting the kibosh on all religions in less than ten seconds.
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.