Priest made young boys dress up as Baby Jesus then sexually abused them

submitted by Antarchomachus from metro.co.uk

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]FlippyKing 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The man in the interview is not teaching you about Jesus. He is talking about the shroud of which he has considerable knowledge. And, clearly with your certainty about the trinity and proper doctrine and the words to express, few if any will have anything to teach you about Jesus.

No where did I type "separate".

Skip the interview because the interviewee is Jewish. Confuse him sharing his expertise on the shroud with what he isn't doing (talking about Jesus), and remain confident and smug about it. You won't lose anything by not hearing what he has to say. I'm sorry to have suggested it to you and wasted this much of your time.

[–]In-the-clouds 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You have the right to suggest content, especially on a website like this. I was being honest with you, that I did not wish to watch the entire interview, and when you asked for an answer, I told you my reason. I hope you are not offended by me. I am sorry if I came across as smug. I want none of that proud attitude clinging to me. But I do want to provide an honest answer if asked a question. I was actually pleased to find someone (you) that I could share a mystery about God that few talk about, that Jesus is God. Most are not ready for that revelation.

[–]FlippyKing 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Fair enough, and thank you for frank engagement here. I was taken aback by our differences in wording, I guess, over trinitarian doctrine. To say "God in 3 Persons" is not controversial except in Islam or Nestorian type Christianities (or I guess Unitarian? I don't know. UUs are mostly atheists if not in theory certain in my experience around them).

I do think you're missing out, unless you are either 1) so very up on all the facts, mysteries, and Mysteries around the shroud, or 2) if you are not interested in them. The owner of the shroud gave it to scientists, some Christian, some not, to do what ever testing they could on it with out destroying it. These are the only people ever to gain such thorough access to it and so anyone else speculating about it are just doing that: speculating. This guy happened to be the who documented it all, and he did an admirable job. I don't see his contribution very different than say the way Aquinas used Aristotle or even Islamic theologians when using them served best when he was writing his theological works.

I also strongly suspect anything you hear about the shroud would then be a watered down version of Barrie is providing, because he is one who is most out front with the best information about it. One does not have know anything about the shroud, believe anything said about by anyone, or be suspicious of it: it can help those it helps or it can be an unknown (as I guess it is to most people).