Lefty

This I believe is an excellent example of how the RCC is blowing smoke up the backsides of its followers. They claim this to be the location of the so-called "Last Supper", yet the building they admit wasn't built till around the 12-14th century, on top of an older 4th-century church. One must really have faith to believe the last supper took place in a building that wouldn't exist for another 300+ years after that last meal. All boils down to absolutely no proof at all this is the location, even if the bible were true! And just to prove my point of the "church" trying to appease the other religions of the area, they just so happen to also claim it's the location of King David's tomb for good measure. https://www.foxnews.com/tech/last-supper-site-reveals-secrets

LOL, well, they do religiously push communism, so there's that. And once you go through their re-education camps to pay for your sins, you will feel born again. Oh, and it does seem that the state is omnipresent, digitally speaking.

Thank you mwc, well done in your travels. Very interesting indeed.

Wow, you really did some searching. I was thinking you were just doing some literary research to write a response. I'm jealous of you seeing all those old places. For Europeans, old places are all over and not that big a deal, but for an American who has never been across the pond, the oldest we see here is no more than maybe the 17th century. Interesting that while it was an informal search, seems you have added to my assertions that any "churches" no older than about the 4th century are about all that can be found. Aside from the area of Rome, the next closest place would likely be in Turkey I'd venture to say and then of course in Jerusalem for the oldest structures. Even in Jerusalem, I have not heard of anything older than around the 4th century and they are all Catholic. To be fair, the early churches I'd guess were small nondescript buildings that have long since been replaced and built over by newer structures. A verified late 1st century or 2nd-century "church" likely won't be found. A side note...I find it humorous that you found graffiti that mentions Peter and Paul. While there are indications in the Christian story that Paul went to Rome "...to appeal unto Ceasar...", from what I remember, there is no evidence that Peter was ever in Rome. From what I understand, Peter in Rome is a total fraud created by the Roman Catholic Church for the tourist trade. A man named Paul? Maybe according to the story. I've never really looked into it, but I find it interesting that the RCC chose Peter as their champion and not Paul. with there being no indications Peter was ever in Rome yet the story says Paul was there. How interesting that the only "proof" the RCC offers is stuff that cannot be proven as authentic and requires one to believe it to be proof. Of course, then you have a situation where the RCC itself could have been duped by fraudsters back in the day coming back from the Holy Land with artifacts that are a fraud. Syria? Seems I remember seeing an article some time back that was about a house found there with a mosaic tile floor that is clearly Christian in design that dates back to around the 4th century (?), but I'm not familiar with anything older. I am no expert nor even a novice researcher so my knowledge is very limited. So, my contention that the original "church" was to be house to house with no official "church buildings" still stands. I don't think anything earlier than around the late 3rd century will ever be found of any kind of official church buildings and those structures will no doubt be of early RCC origin. It is later on that the Protestants split off from the nutcases in the RCC to eventually form the later fundy movements.

Al would be proud

LOL, touche'

I think it more appropriate to say for every action there are consequences. Indeed, the so-called "golden rule" is bullshit designed to motivate the masses to behave themselves as the ruling religious class desires. In the south where I'm from, this rule is usually prefaced with the phrase "Hold my beer. Hey ya'll watch this..."

Thank you for the replies. That's some interesting comments, but as I said, I already have heard the story pretty much presented as it has been here. However... ...the only part that comes close to actually answering is this by wellnamed, "...Theories are not facts in some simple sense...." I knew from the start that there would be paragraphs written but would likely not answer directly the question. Dare I ask, can a simple yes or no suffice? A brief explanation of why yes or no is fine. Remember, I'm not asking for a scientific paper here, just asking a rather basic question that the average person can make sense of.

Yes, I'm in a sense taking an unscientific poke at science. The term "scientific theory" has always troubled me with the way it is used in science. As a layman, it seems to me to fall short of the intent merely by using the word "theory". The reason I bring this up is I have run into this topic in another thread here in these forums. Years ago I was "schooled" by men of science when I questioned why evolution is called "The Theory of Evolution". I asked why is the word theory used if evolution is fact. BOY was that a...lively discussion! I have read many answers to this question, and I still come away with the impression that the word theory is lacking somehow. This is NOT a thread about evolution so please let's not cover that here. This is about the thread title. I just use evolution because it uses the word theory so commonly all the while the majority of the public likely has no clue how science uses the word theory. Among scientists, the use of the word is understood. To the unlearned, the word "theory" I suspect is most commonly thought of as something that is not proven fact. From the above explanation, it seems the use of "theory" means this is what we believe to be true until it is proven incorrect. "...When a theory is well confirmed people trust its predictions...". That statement sums up my point. Can "well confirmed" [sic] be considered "fact"? Also using the word "trust" is a little unsettling seeing I don't trust humans as I do know they make mistakes and can have a bias. For science to tell me "trust us we know what we are doing!", all the while tending to do an awful lot of educated guessing and present it to suggest it is proven fact just doesn't sit well with me. Evolution or "The Big Bang Theory" as an example, it is called theory because it has not been proven false? Can one say they are scientific fact?

Yes, I'm aware of the "scientific theory" angle. No need to get all technical. I was just having fun. Sorry.

Guess it's a matter of opinion, but I thought a little levity would be constructive, especially since science hasn't really a clue about Mars other than theory. A whole host of papers have been written, all pointing to a common understanding that they simply don't know.

That's preposterous! The science clearly points to bovine flatulence.

Thank you, but I'm a bit confused. I was under the silly impression that the bunny was to watch over my virility. (for the record I have no children. What's up with that Doc? Just sayin'! )

It's the Henry Ford sales pitch..."You can have your automobile painted any color you want so long as it's black".