How is this not already posted? Now if you don't know who Karen King is she does have a history of promoting early Christian feminism. Her Gospel of Mary is a solid book. I need to see it someone like Ehrman to endorse it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19645273
"It is not evidence, for us, historically, that Jesus had a wife," she said.
"It's quite clear evidence, in fact, that some Christians, probably in the second half of the 2nd Century, thought that Jesus had a wife."
So the feminist angle here isn't about him having a wife...it's that females probably had more presence in the religious thinking of some of the early Christian communities. Which I don't think is particularly revelatory or heretical.
So the feminist angle here isn't about him having a wife...it's that females probably had more presence in the religious thinking of some of the early Christian communities. Which I don't think is particularly revelatory or heretical.
gorgon wrote:The important part of the article is here.
"It is not evidence, for us, historically, that Jesus had a wife," she said.
"It's quite clear evidence, in fact, that some Christians, probably in the second half of the 2nd Century, thought that Jesus had a wife."
So the feminist angle here isn't about him having a wife...it's that females probably had more presence in the religious thinking of some of the early Christian communities. Which I don't think is particularly revelatory or heretical.
We already know that among the Gnostics and Copts women had at least an equal role. The feminist angle is this:"King said that in the dialogue the disciples discuss whether Mary is worthy and Jesus says "she can be my disciple."
Which has been one of the central things King has espoused in her deconstruction of the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Philip. A second century document may be separated from an original gospel but is not so far distanced to of include an oral component and is near enough to his life to precede the prevailing proto orthodox belief he was single and celibate, you know like your priests. It's a pretty ground breaking discovery regardless because Christians had a lot more to do with the development of Christianity than Christ did.
So the feminist angle here isn't about him having a wife...it's that females probably had more presence in the religious thinking of some of the early Christian communities. Which I don't think is particularly revelatory or heretical.
AustonT wrote: How is this not already posted? Now if you don't know who Karen King is she does have a history of promoting early Christian feminism. Her Gospel of Mary is a solid book. I need to see it someone like Ehrman to endorse it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19645273
It doesn't actually say he had a wife. Its half a sentence. The rest of the entire book or letter is not there. Its not enough to prove anything, if real.
It was dated several hundred years after.
gorgon wrote:The important part of the article is here.
"It is not evidence, for us, historically, that Jesus had a wife," she said.
"It's quite clear evidence, in fact, that some Christians, probably in the second half of the 2nd Century, thought that Jesus had a wife."
So the feminist angle here isn't about him having a wife...it's that females probably had more presence in the religious thinking of some of the early Christian communities. Which I don't think is particularly revelatory or heretical.
We already know that among the Gnostics and Copts women had at least an equal role. The feminist angle is this:"King said that in the dialogue the disciples discuss whether Mary is worthy and Jesus says "she can be my disciple."
Which has been one of the central things King has espoused in her deconstruction of the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Philip. A second century document may be separated from an original gospel but is not so far distanced to of include an oral component and is near enough to his life to precede the prevailing proto orthodox belief he was single and celibate, you know like your priests. It's a pretty ground breaking discovery regardless because Christians had a lot more to do with the development of Christianity than Christ did.
Yeah, makes sense. Still, this story is getting reported all over the place as "proof Jesus had a wife."
There were many early gospels. The early church elders decided, for various reasons, to make Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John the canonical texts of the faith and did their best to suppress all the others.
Far, far, far more important -- and thus never talked about -- are the rites in the actual Church for ordination of women deacons.
Who cares what ancient heretics thought centuries after the fact? Women had important roles in the ancient Church and the Church today prefers them not to.
Manchu wrote: Far, far, far more important -- and thus never talked about -- are the rites in the actual Church for ordination of women deacons.
Who cares what ancient heretics thought centuries after the fact? Women had important roles in the ancient Church and the Catholic Church today prefers them not to.
Ok. My question here is why wouldn't he have a wife? I agree with Hlaine Larkin mk2 here. It definitely would have been very strange for a 30 year old Jewish male in Israel to not be married.
Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:It would have been exceptionally rare for a 33 Year Old male in Israel not to be married so it nots too much of a surprise
Judea.
Maxstreel wrote:Ok. My question here is why wouldn't he have a wife? I agree with Hlaine Larkin mk2 here. It definitely would have been very strange for a 30 year old Jewish male in Israel to not be married.
There were some interesting Christian rites before normatized Christianity. One tha remained pretty steady was the sex made the body unclean, lactating mothers ranked just above prostitutes if you can fathom that. The Virgin Mother and a virgin Jesus emphasize the holiness of the Christ׳s life, but makes little sense. An unfruitful Jesus is defiant of the mitzvah to be fruitful and multiply. Six of one half dozen of another.
While it woudl be interesting to have insight into Jesus the man, it's not horribly relevant. That's assuming he actually did have a wife, and this isnt' just the result of a game of telephone.
It's easy to paint the early church as maliciously squashing all the other gospels, but there's a reason some depictions of events are accepted and others aren't.
For example... look at depictions of the birth of president obama. This is while he is alive, in a modern society, and you can find texts telling a very different story. In 2000 years, should we really look to "birther" literature as good insight into Obama?
The Bringer wrote: Please people. Jesus referred to the Church as his bride. Even if this a genuine manuscript, it is very likely that he is still using that imagery.
that was brought up in the NPR article I heard this morning.
The Bringer wrote: Please people. Jesus referred to the Church as his bride. Even if this a genuine manuscript, it is very likely that he is still using that imagery.
Which is increasingly likely if the authoer of that fragment was either not very poetic, or didn't understand the metaphor in the first place.
The underlying point is that this is just one small piece of evidence.
I think you'll find that Paul 971:251 - Paul's letters to the laundromat.
So whats up with that guy. DId he like save copies of everything? Kind of annoying so wrote a lot? really dude, put the pen down and get a hobby.
I suspect that is also what AustonT is up to. No, Jesus did not say "oh and when I say bridegroom, I mean that there is a bride and that the bride is the Church." Of course, that is totally immaterial.
Manchu wrote: I suspect that is also what AustonT is up to.
You suspect correctly. As a point of of fact Jesus never refers to the church as a bride, neither does John really. The are referring to well known social constructs of the time in order to illustrate a point.
No, Jesus did not say "oh and when I say bridegroom, I mean that there is a bride and that the bride is the Church." Of course, that is totally immaterial.
because as above it has nothing to do with "a church" let alone "The Church" which does not exist in his lifetime. It's simply a rhetorical devise used in oratory. The person who DOES refer to the church as a bride is the Arch-Heretic Paul, or as I like to call him Horus. The Bride of Christ tradition is not supported by exegeses of the Gospels. The poster I was responding to is just incorrect, your interpretation that he implied the church is his bride; I personally think is incorrect but Psalm 62:12 says "God has spoken once, I have heard it twice." I suppose that's 62:11 in most Christian bibles.
I am confused as to what you think Jesus's statement regarding Peter has to do with the legitimacy of Paul's letters. I suppose I have some idea; you would prefer the letters to have been written by Peter? But since Peter accepted Paul's views, that can't be it.
Early priests were not all single or celbate. The rules on priests not getting married were changed due to land issues. It would be relatively easy to allow regular married priests.
Far, far, far more important -- and thus never talked about -- are the rites in the actual Church for ordination of women deacons.
Who cares what ancient heretics thought centuries after the fact? Women had important roles in the ancient Church and the Church today prefers them not to.
So basically - women used to be deacons but there is no valid evidence to this and therefore it must have been suppressed?
There were some interesting Christian rites before normatized Christianity. One tha remained pretty steady was the sex made the body unclean, lactating mothers ranked just above prostitutes if you can fathom that.
Where do you get this bullcrap? That's judaism. In Catholicsm sex does not make a woman 'unclean'
In terms of Jesus and marraige - it is also highly likely that he became some sort of ascetic, later writings refer to a vow of the nazerene which is impled to involve acetisim and celebacy. However he *may* have had a wife and possibly children should he have been married. We won't know unless we can make a time machine.
OT: Jesus may have had a wife. Obama may be a closet giraffe molester. Pigs may fly. Bacon may cause gayness. It's all mays, mights, possibles and maybes about a scrap of paper that appears out of the blue, is in egyptian and has no solid origins. But hey it slates Catholicsm so let's roll with it!
Manchu wrote: I am confused as to what you think Jesus's statement regarding Peter has to do with the legitimacy of Paul's letters. I suppose I have some idea; you would prefer the letters to have been written by Peter? But since Peter accepted Paul's views, that can't be it.
What proof do you have that Peter accepted Paul's views? It is entirely more likely the Pauline teaching became scripture around the same time the document in the OP was written.
What I love is that comic book fans arguing over canon about their favorite fictional characters because they found some ancient issue that contradicts the modern canon is seen as a pathetic obsession, but bible fans arguing over canon about their favorite fictional characters because they found some ancient issue that contradicts the modern canon is considered legitimate news. And it's such a boring detail to argue about, the issue where God summons bears to eat a bunch of rude children is much more awesome!
AustonT wrote: What proof do you have that Peter accepted Paul's views? It is entirely more likely the Pauline teaching became scripture around the same time the document in the OP was written.
Paul's letters are all from the first century. They were written to the churches of the world. As far as "becoming scripture," meaning there existed a well-defined and widely-accepted canon, yes that was the fourth century.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Phototoxin: Exalted!
Phototoxin wrote: Early priests were not all single or celbate. The rules on priests not getting married were changed due to land issues. It would be relatively easy to allow regular married priests.
There were some interesting Christian rites before normatized Christianity. One tha remained pretty steady was the sex made the body unclean, lactating mothers ranked just above prostitutes if you can fathom that.
Where do you get this bullcrap? That's judaism. In Catholicsm sex does not make a woman 'unclean'
AustonT wrote: What proof do you have that Peter accepted Paul's views? It is entirely more likely the Pauline teaching became scripture around the same time the document in the OP was written.
Paul's letters are all from the first century. They were written to the churches of the world. As far as "becoming scripture," meaning there existed a well-defined and widely-accepted canon, yes that was the fourth century.
None of which answers the question what proof do you have Peter accepted Paul.
Phototoxin wrote: Early priests were not all single or celbate. The rules on priests not getting married were changed due to land issues. It would be relatively easy to allow regular married priests.
There were some interesting Christian rites before normatized Christianity. One tha remained pretty steady was the sex made the body unclean, lactating mothers ranked just above prostitutes if you can fathom that.
Where do you get this bullcrap? That's judaism. In Catholicsm sex does not make a woman 'unclean'
St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, and St. Augustine
To add to this: The earliest Christians were Jews. That's what the whole gentile/Jew debate between Peter and Paul was about. Also, considering a woman in her menses unclean was really just... normative all across the empire at that point. Lactation is slightly different, but can fall into the same category.
1) As has been stated many times the gnostic gospels were rejected because gnosticism was an early heresy that taught the God of this world (as embodied from the old testament) was evil, and that the world we live in was created by a series of evil powerful entities (and other teachings which were at odds with Christianity). The early church fathers denounced and taught against gnosticism. It was the existence of these heretical documents which in part contributed to the need to declare a "canon" I.E. The Bible. So people would not be deceived into buying into the heresy.
2) Bart Ehrman is hardly the guy you want to trust, as his book's have been refuted by the likes of Timothy Paul Jones and James White.
3) No where in the Bible does it even hint that Jesus had a wife, you have to resort to the gnostic(heretical) writings to go there. Da vinci code relies on a lot of gnostic literature for it's fantasy.
Here are some fun quotes from Gnostic writings.
"Sexual intercourse continued due to the ruler of this world. He planted sexual desire in the woman that belonged to Adam. He produced through intercourse copies of the bodies, inspiring them with his spirit of opposition" (Apocryphon of John).
"My mother [gave me falsehood], but [my] true [Mother] gave me life" (Gospel of Thomas, 101).
"The one who is acquainted with father and mother will be called the son of a prostitute" (ibid., 105).
Physical intercourse produces beasts, so Gnostic believers must "abandon bestiality" (Book of Thomas the Contender, 139:8-11, 28-29).
"Annihilate the works which pertain to the woman [i.e., child-bearing]... so that they [the works of creation] may cease" (Dialogue of the Savior, 144:19-20).
Femininity is "unclean" and is called Nature's "dark vagina" (Zostrianos, 131:5-8; see also Testimony of Truth, 68:6-8).
Marriage is defilement; sexual intercourse, called the "intercourse of Darkness," will be destroyed at the end of time (Gospel of Philip, 82:4).
The Gnostic believer must "flee from the insanity and fetters of femaleness, and embrace instead the salvation of maleness" (Paraphrase of Shem, 18:34-35; 27:2-3; 22:34).
A curse on "you who love intimacy with womankind and polluted intercourse with it" (Book of Thomas the Contender, 144:9-10).
"The body came from sexual desire, and sexual desire came from . . . matter" (Authoritative Teaching, 23:18-20).
The soul came in "a contemptible body" (Gospel of Philip, 56:25).
The physical world is a mistake or "an illusion" (Treatise on The Resurrection, 48:15).
Jesus says: "I shall destroy [this] house [physical body], and no one will be able to rebuild it" (Gospel of Thomas, 71).
"[The] body is bestial... [and] will perish" (Book of Thomas the Contender, 139:6-8).
It's a pretty ground breaking discovery regardless because Christians had a lot more to do with the development of Christianity than Christ did.
Its not ground breaking at all. There has been circumstantial evidence and debate on this issue since the 1920's. Unfortunately, no one has ever produced evidence of value. Gnostics were not Christian, and their gospels push a completely different agenda and system of belief from the Christianity of the time (some day people will figure that out and stop confusing the two). The Coptic church didn't even exist until 5th century, so she's completely side stepping the origins of the difference between Coptics and Orthodox/Catholic Christians.
As has been stated many times the gnostic gospels were rejected because gnosticism was an early heresy that taught the God of this world (as embodied from the old testament) was evil, and that the world we live in was created by a series of evil powerful entities (and other teachings which were at odds with Christianity). The early church fathers denounced and taught against gnosticism. It was the existence of these heretical documents which in part contributed to the need to declare a "canon" I.E. The Bible. So people would not be deceived into buying into the heresy.
No its not. Gnosticism predates Christianity by at least a century, and is a completely different belief system that used the Jesus narrative in the 2nd and 3rd century to support its own beliefs. The Bible was not canonized just to counter Gnostics.
generalgrog wrote: Bart Ehrman is hardly the guy you want to trust, as his book's have been refuted by the likes of Timothy Paul Jones and James White.
Refuted is an interesting way to put that. Kind of like how Glenn Beck has refuted Obama in his books. Man who do I trust to vet their authors better Harvard or Intervarsity? Maybe had you mentioned someone with real credentials like Craig Evans you'd have a point.
No its not. Gnosticism predates Christianity by at least a century, and is a completely different belief system that used the Jesus narrative in the 2nd and 3rd century to support its own beliefs. The Bible was not canonized just to counter Gnostics.
I'm pretty sure I didn't say "just to counter Gnostics".. oh wait let me check what I said...
General Grog wrote "It was the existence of these heretical documents which in part contributed to the need to declare a "canon" I.E. The Bible"
generalgrog wrote: 1) As has been stated many times the gnostic gospels were rejected because gnosticism was an early heresy that taught the God of this world (as embodied from the old testament) was evil, and that the world we live in was created by a series of evil powerful entities (and other teachings which were at odds with Christianity). The early church fathers denounced and taught against gnosticism. It was the existence of these heretical documents which in part contributed to the need to declare a "canon" I.E. The Bible. So people would not be deceived into buying into the heresy.
So pretty much the Bible fandom decided, in the absence of a canon policy from the actual authors, to exclude certain works they disliked? Kind of like how a lot of Star Wars fans consider the prequels to be heresy, or 40k fans ignore anything Matt Ward writes? I can understand the desire to do it, but what qualifies these particular fans to determine canon policy? Shouldn't we instead consider all Bible products to be canon until the author says otherwise?
3) No where in the Bible does it even hint that Jesus had a wife, you have to resort to the gnostic(heretical) writings to go there. Da vinci code relies on a lot of gnostic literature for it's fantasy.
Ah, the irony of a Bible fan calling another work of fiction "fantasy"...
AustonT wrote: Refuted is an interesting way to put that. Kind of like how Glenn Beck has refuted Obama in his books. Man who do I trust to vet their authors better Harvard or Intervarsity? Maybe had you mentioned someone with real credentials like Craig Evans you'd have a point.
I'm not entirely familiar with the subject, but Ehrman's books have received criticism from other academic historians, not just tinfoil hatters like Glen Beck. As I understand it, the accusation is that Ehrman goes too far in trying to assemble a single coherent story from various contradictory sources, and too much of his work is personal speculation without much factual evidence to support it. I don't think it's been solidly refuted, but his claims are still considered somewhat controversial in his field.
I'm not entirely familiar with the subject, but Ehrman's books have received criticism from other academic historians, not just tinfoil hatters like Timothy Paul Jones. As I understand it, the accusation is that Ehrman goes too far in trying to assemble a single coherent story from various contradictory sources, and too much of his work is personal speculation without much factual evidence to support it. I don't think it's been solidly refuted, but his claims are still considered somewhat controversial in his field.
Any historian of any stripe should be challenged when introducing new research. Ehrman has been aiming at a non scholarly audience increasingly but he has had some really good debates with legitimate theologians and historians; he generally comes out looking pretty solid but definitely radical. I simply take issue with the use of what it at its very best a publication on par with Beck.
I'm pretty sure I didn't say "just to counter Gnostics".. oh wait let me check what I said...
General Grog wrote "It was the existence of these heretical documents which in part contributed to the need to declare a "canon" I.E. The Bible"
Well what do ya know...I didn't say that at all.
GG
My mistake. I guess I glossed over that middle bit while reading.
So pretty much the Bible fandom decided, in the absence of a canon policy from the actual authors, to exclude certain works they disliked?
No. The Early Church got together and decided what books to include in canon and excluded both those that they thought were less useful and those that they felt were incorrect. They were right to exclude Gnostic texts and the Gnostics had very different beliefs about God, Jesus, and salvation. Canonization was not the product of decided what they liked an didn't like and more a compromise produced by a very diverse body to put together a document that was as short as possible and covered all necessary points. It was initially made for the early clergy as a reference work of sorts.
AustonT wrote: Any historian of any stripe should be challenged when introducing new research. Ehrman has been aiming at a non scholarly audience increasingly but he has had some really good debates with legitimate theologians and historians; he generally comes out looking pretty solid but definitely radical. I simply take issue with the use of what it at its very best a publication on par with Beck.
Well yeah, obviously there are a lot of Beck-level people who hate his books, and they should be ignored. But I'd be wary of quoting Ehrman too confidently since there seem to be a lot of legitimate issues with his work.
But I'd be wary of quoting Ehrman too confidently since there seem to be a lot of legitimate issues with his work.
The problem is that Ehrman is extremely speculative, which can be okay, but he's the bad kind of speculative who will take an unsupported position (EDIT: A position that makes sense but has no factual basis) and refuses to move from it. Still. That kind of 'scholarship' serves a useful purpose.
LordofHats wrote: he Early Church got together and decided what books to include in canon and excluded both those that they thought were less useful and those that they felt were incorrect.
In other words, a particular branch of the Bible fandom decided to, in the absence of an official canon policy from the author(s), create a fanon of their own. Like I said, I understand the appeal of doing so, but I don't see why those particular fans have any authority, or why we should use their canon policy over the default assumption that all works by the original author/publisher in a universe are canon.
They were right to exclude Gnostic texts and the Gnostics had very different beliefs about God, Jesus, and salvation. Canonization was not the product of decided what they liked an didn't like and more a compromise produced by a very diverse body to put together a document that was as short as possible and covered all necessary points. It was initially made for the early clergy as a reference work of sorts.
In other words, the Bible fandom decided that the continuity errors should be resolved by excluding one particular group of works but not others (sadly ignoring many other continuity errors in the process). I understand the appeal of fixing those errors when the author doesn't seem interested in doing so, but why should we treat that choice as official? Why shouldn't we consider the Gnostic works to be canon and throw out the rest?
And I really don't see why this should be considered newsworthy. We don't publish news articles when a bunch of comic book fans decide that Superman #9290430234 (published in 1964) got his costume color wrong and should be considered non-canon, so why should we act like it's a newsworthy event when some Bible fans have a dispute over canon policy in their fictional universe?
Peregrine wrote: In other words, a particular branch of the Bible fandom decided to, in the absence of an official canon policy from the author(s), create a fanon of their own.
There is no branch of Bible fandom in the early church because there was no Bible. You can't have fandom for something that doesn't exist yet. And I guess you'd rather be obtuse about the distinction between Gnostics and Christians and the relationship between the two. The authors were all dead, and the Bible was not canonized into a text for the purpose (at the time) of decided outright which documents were true and which weren't. It was a practical measure to get everyone on the same page and as a rather democratic process.
Gnostic texts were not included because Gnostics were not present because Gnostics were not Christian. Sooner or later people are going to figure that out. Calling Gnostics Christian and their texts Christian is like calling Hindu's Buddhists. It diservices both belief systems by unfairly equating them because of theological connections and similarities and geographic proximity.
In other words, the Bible fandom decided that the continuity errors should be resolved by excluding one particular group of works but not others (sadly ignoring many other continuity errors in the process).
There are no continuity errors (not in this sense). Gnostics had their own thing going on, and anyone with the slightest clue about Gnostic theology knows that it has very little in common with Christianity. It spawned from the mystery religions of the Hellenistic world, not the Abrahamic traditions.
I understand the appeal of fixing those errors when the author doesn't seem interested in doing so, but why should we treat that choice as official?
There is no author. The Biblical texts were not a fantasy series written by someone as a creative work. Only a few books have the same author (namely the Epistles) and some have more than one. The authors had no unified vision, and no intention that their work would ever be codified into a collection. Most of the books in the New Testament were written to a specific audience with a specific purpose in mind. A canon did not exist until the Bible was canonized and one was created (and its not even like there's a definitive date where this can be said to have happened).
In other words, drop the false analogy.
Why shouldn't we consider the Gnostic works to be canon and throw out the rest?
For the same reason that Star Trek fans don't consider Star Wars as their canon. This really is very simple.
And I really don't see why this should be considered newsworthy. We don't publish news articles when a bunch of comic book fans decide that Superman #9290430234 (published in 1964) got his costume color wrong and should be considered non-canon, so why should we act like it's a newsworthy event when some Bible fans have a dispute over canon policy in their fictional universe?
Because religious controversy sells. Since when has news ever been about news?
AustonT wrote: What proof do you have that Peter accepted Paul's views? It is entirely more likely the Pauline teaching became scripture around the same time the document in the OP was written.
Paul's letters are all from the first century. They were written to the churches of the world. As far as "becoming scripture," meaning there existed a well-defined and widely-accepted canon, yes that was the fourth century.
None of which answers the question what proof do you have Peter accepted Paul.
You're right. And I have no proof that Jesus ever even lived, much less Paul or Peter. I suppose your question is not really worth asking if we can't even establish that they existed.
The accusations about the historical existence of Biblical figures baffles me. Anyone with any knowledge of history quickly realizes that most of history before the Roman Empire can only be attested to by one or two sources (if we're lucky). Even in the Roman Empire, we're lucky to have more than three or four contemporary sources for events.
As a comparison: There is more literary evidence that Jesus was real than the Battle of Marathon.
LordofHats wrote: As a comparison: There is more literary evidence that Jesus was real than the Battle of Marathon.
Except the difference is nobody believes anything supernatural about the Battle of Marathon. While there may be some evidence for a historical Jesus, preacher and martyr, there isn't any historical evidence for the fictional character Jesus, son of god and savior of humanity. I'm sure the historical Jesus is of some interest to historians, but when people say "Jesus" they tend to be talking about the fictional character.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: There is no branch of Bible fandom in the early church because there was no Bible. You can't have fandom for something that doesn't exist yet. And I guess you'd rather be obtuse about the distinction between Gnostics and Christians and the relationship between the two. The authors were all dead, and the Bible was not canonized into a text for the purpose (at the time) of decided outright which documents were true and which weren't. It was a practical measure to get everyone on the same page and as a rather democratic process.
Ok, let's ignore the nitpick and understand "Bible" as "the literary works that make up the fantasy novel currently known as the Bible", whether they existed as various separate short stories or as a single compiled book at any given moment. All you're describing is the kind of canon war that happens between comic fans arguing over which author wrote the "real" version of Superman, except you've declared that somehow one section of the fandom was correct even though none of the original authors have made any statement on their canon policy.
There is no author. The Biblical texts were not a fantasy series written by someone as a creative work. Only a few books have the same author (namely the Epistles) and some have more than one. The authors had no unified vision, and no intention that their work would ever be codified into a collection. Most of the books in the New Testament were written to a specific audience with a specific purpose in mind. A canon did not exist until the Bible was canonized and one was created (and its not even like there's a definitive date where this can be said to have happened).
In other words, originally there were various stories about the characters of the Bible, and eventually some fans got together and wrote a volume of unofficial fanfiction tying it all together. This isn't really news, people write fanfiction all the time but it doesn't make their work any more canon than other fanfiction, and it certainly doesn't make an official statement on whether a newly-discovered official (or supposedly official) work is canon.
For the same reason that Star Trek fans don't consider Star Wars as their canon. This really is very simple.
Except the key difference is that both the current fanon for the Bible universe and the "heretical" Gnostic stories share the same characters, same setting, etc.
Peregrine wrote: While there may be some evidence for a historical Jesus, preacher and martyr, there isn't any historical evidence for the fictional character Jesus, son of god and savior of humanity.
Jesus either existed or he didn't. Unless we believe Ronald Regan had clones, someone either is what they are or they are not. The Bible claims there was a man named Jesus who claimed to be the Son of God and savior of all man kind. There is no reason to assume such a man didn't exist. Whether he was telling the truth or was a loony is a separate matter, beyond the scope of history.
Except the key difference is that both the current fanon for the Bible universe and the "heretical" Gnostic stories share the same characters, same setting, etc.
Your ignorance is showing. The Demiurge/Monad/Archons have little in common with God the Father. Christians have no concept of Sophia, Spiritual plains or beings, or of human ascension. There are no Aeons of God in Christianity. Likewise, Gnostics do not have a concept of salvation, the Trinity, heaven or hell. Jesus is a completely different interpretation (want to talk about fictional characters...) and in Gnosticism post-dates Christian views that were already in the process of being canonized.
Gnosticism is a hybrid of Christianity and the Hellenistic mysticism. Again. Calling Gnostics Christian is a diservice to both Gnostics and Christians. They are NOT the same. Gnosticism as a definable belief system didn't even exist until the late second century, when most Christian texts were already codified forty of fifty years prior.
Perhaps the lesson here is to study something before spewing off illogical nonsense?
LordofHats wrote: Jesus either existed or he didn't. Unless we believe Ronald Regan had clones, someone either is what they are or they are not. The Bible claims there was a man named Jesus who claimed to be the Son of God and savior of all man kind. There is no reason to assume such a man didn't exist. Whether he was telling the truth or was a loony is a separate matter, beyond the scope of history.
Except when most people say "Jesus existed" they mean WAY more than "some guy ran around claiming to be the son of god and then got executed for annoying the wrong people". Outside of a few historians it's a safe bet that when someone starts talking about the "evidence for Jesus" they aren't just taking a side in an academic debate, they're using the evidence for "Jesus the crazy preacher" to prove that "Jesus son of god" existed. Essentially they're two very different people, and more often than not the motive for ignoring that split is a dishonest one.
Your ignorance is showing. The Demiurge/Monad/Archons have little in common with God the Father. Christians have no concept of Sophia, Spiritual plains or beings, or of human ascension. There are no Aeons of God in Christianity. Likewise, Gnostics do not have a concept of salvation, the Trinity, heaven or hell. Jesus is a completely different interpretation (want to talk about fictional characters...) and in Gnosticism post-dates Christian views that were already in the process of being canonized.
And you think that kind of continuity error is surprising? Go look at a comic book forum and you'll see that exact same kind of debate over all the many ways in which author X got Superman wrong. But in the end we still say that all of them are fans of the same character, we don't seriously accept the idea that one side has the "real" Superman and everything else is an entirely different universe.
Essentially they're two very different people, and more often than not the motive for ignoring that split is a dishonest one.
Honestly, the motive for claiming there is a split is dishonest. The distinction of the 'historical Jesus' was invented solely to avoid debate with Christians that their Jesus might not actually be the Son of God. Well, dishonest or sadly practical.
And you think that kind of continuity error is surprising? Go look at a comic book forum and you'll see that exact same kind of debate over all the many ways in which author X got Superman wrong. But in the end we still say that all of them are fans of the same character, we don't seriously accept the idea that one side has the "real" Superman and everything else is an entirely different universe.
Then I guess you're one of those types that prefers your fantasy reality to actual reality. Good to know my jaded world view is still in tact.
LordofHats wrote: Honestly, the motive for claiming there is a split is dishonest. The distinction of the 'historical Jesus' was invented solely to avoid debate with Christians that their Jesus might not actually be the Son of God. Well, dishonest or sadly practical.
Err, lol? The distinction of "historical Jesus" exists because many Christians can't understand that giving evidence for a mortal man named Jesus is not the same as giving evidence for the supernatural elements of the story. There's no need to avoid debate when the evidence is overwhelmingly against any Son of God (or God) existing, it's just important to actually debate what you claim to be debating and not use evidence for one to prove the other.
As for the question of whether the Bible is anything more than a particularly popular fantasy novel, well, I think that one is pretty conclusively settled at this point.
Then I guess you're one of those types that prefers your fantasy reality to actual reality. Good to know my jaded world view is still in tact.
Keep telling yourself that the Bible is special, and completely different from all those comic book debates over the same kind of conflicts between multiple fictional works involving the same characters.
generalgrog wrote: 2) Bart Ehrman is hardly the guy you want to trust, as his book's have been refuted by the likes of Timothy Paul Jones and James White.
If Timothy Paul Jones took the time to refute him he must be pretty good.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: Well yeah, obviously there are a lot of Beck-level people who hate his books, and they should be ignored. But I'd be wary of quoting Ehrman too confidently since there seem to be a lot of legitimate issues with his work.
Sure, but there's general wisdom to be found in being wary of quoting any single source too confidently.
It's just funny to hear 'don't listen to that guy, Timothy Paul Jones refutes him'.
AustonT wrote: What proof do you have that Peter accepted Paul's views? It is entirely more likely the Pauline teaching became scripture around the same time the document in the OP was written.
Paul's letters are all from the first century. They were written to the churches of the world. As far as "becoming scripture," meaning there existed a well-defined and widely-accepted canon, yes that was the fourth century.
None of which answers the question what proof do you have Peter accepted Paul.
You're right. And I have no proof that Jesus ever even lived, much less Paul or Peter. I suppose your question is not really worth asking if we can't even establish that they existed.
That's categorically false we have independent accouts that confirm the existence of all three, what we don't have is any indication that Peter accepted Paul as a "special apostle" or in any way endorsed his letters.
Asherian Command wrote:What has happened since I've been gone dear lord!
Semi intellectual conversation not related to politics.
azazel the cat wrote:This topic is not as interesting as it would be if some scrolls had revealed Jesus to have had a husband.
...Just sayin', that'd be interesting is all.
There has been a great deal of speculation concerning the nature of the Judas kiss, not explained away by customs of the time.
AustonT wrote: That's categorically false we have independent accouts that confirm the existence of all three, what we don't have is any indication that Peter accepted Paul as a "special apostle" or in any way endorsed his letters.
Categorically? I think not. A widely accepted argument is not the same thing as categorical truth. What we truly rely on in all serious consideration is the tradition. The gospels themselves are after all artifacts of tradition.
d-usa wrote: Nothing in the ministry of Jesus looses any value or meaning if he was in fact married.
This guy knows what's up.
I don't see what the big deal is really. I mean, yes, it's very interesting to talk about about, but at the end of the day, it doesn't really change anything from a theological standpoint.
AustonT wrote: That's categorically false we have independent accouts that confirm the existence of all three, what we don't have is any indication that Peter accepted Paul as a "special apostle" or in any way endorsed his letters.
Categorically? I think not. A widely accepted argument is not the same thing as categorical truth. What we truly rely on in all serious consideration is the tradition. The gospels themselves are after all artifacts of tradition.
Your attempting to argue against the historiocity of Jesus and Peter, you number among your supporters David Icke. Categorically false is the nice way of putting it.
azazel the cat wrote: This topic is not as interesting as it would be if some scrolls had revealed Jesus to have had a husband.
...Just sayin', that'd be interesting is all.
That's why there's Jesus/Judas fanfiction.
(Seriously. If you want hot Jesus porn, it's out there.)
And how would you know?
Is it my fault I find a man nailing another man as a third man is nailing him to a cross hot?
Ironically, if one were to believe that everything is a result of God's creation, then technically it would be the fault of the father of the man being, uh, double-nailed. Or possibly that man's fault, depending on how the trinity concept plays out for you.
Since when were these doctors jesus himself? They had their biases which were expressed in their writings but none of it is doctrine.
General gog = exalted!
In other words, a particular branch of the Bible fandom decided to, in the absence of an official canon policy from the author(s), create a fanon of their own. Like I said, I understand the appeal of doing so, but I don't see why those particular fans have any authority, or why we should use their canon policy over the default assumption that all works by the original author/publisher in a universe are canon.
Apostilic succession. Which is why a roman catholic bible has more books than a protestant one. (And Luther even wanted to remove the letter of st James - the 'epistle of straw')
And I really don't see why this should be considered newsworthy. We don't publish news articles when a bunch of comic book fans decide that Superman #9290430234 (published in 1964) got his costume color wrong and should be considered non-canon, so why should we act like it's a newsworthy event when some Bible fans have a dispute over canon policy in their fictional universe?
Because christianity, more than any other religion is a threat to people. It challenges them and makes them uncomfortable. Whereas the other abrahamic religions are law based, chrsitianity at its core is a love based religion - love god, love your neighbour.
You're right. And I have no proof that Jesus ever even lived, much less Paul or Peter. I suppose your question is not really worth asking if we can't even establish that they existed.
There's more evidence for Jesus' existance than for Julius Caesar.
Your ignorance is showing. The Demiurge/Monad/Archons have little in common with God the Father. Christians have no concept of Sophia, Spiritual plains or beings, or of human ascension.
Actually Catholicsm has likened the Spirit to spohia, wisdom, which is something god loves. In addition it has ascention of Jesus and Mary and a couple of Old testament dudes into heaven.
Phototoxin wrote: Apostilic succession. Which is why a roman catholic bible has more books than a protestant one. (And Luther even wanted to remove the letter of st James - the 'epistle of straw')
Sorry, but a fanboy delusion that you're connected to the characters in your favorite fantasy novel doesn't mean it's true or that you get to decide the canon policy for that universe. I don't get to claim I'm descended from Superman and therefore Issue #5464 is non-canon, so why should it be any different for the Bible fandom?
Because christianity, more than any other religion is a threat to people. It challenges them and makes them uncomfortable. Whereas the other abrahamic religions are law based, chrsitianity at its core is a love based religion - love god, love your neighbour.
Sure, it's based around love, the way an abusive husband loves his wife as he beats her. You'd better not forget to express your love for God or he will show his love for you by torturing you for eternity in hell. But I forgot, this is an improvement because he tortured himself to death so he could show you this one bit of mercy, otherwise he would have to be torture you for eternity because a magical talking snake convinced your distant ancestor to eat a magic apple. But remember, even though God is going to torture you for eternity he still loves you the whole time!
TBH the prequels were better. At least that version of God was open about being a with anger management issues and did awesome stuff like burning his own followers to death for petty offenses or sending bears to slaughter rude children. Khorne just wishes he was that cool
When the first line of the website says "Unlike the mythical Jesus Christ..." I don't think it's a credible source. An exhaustively researched website that does not cite any of the books claimed as its sources and cites a prominent atheist in Michael Grant as it's main source for Jesus related materials is hardly credible.
See? I can do this too... I'm sure plenty of people in the below link will tell you that jesus did exist.
Exactly. Mythical. We can even approximate his height from recordings of a Jewish historian.
Sorry, but a fanboy delusion that you're connected to the characters in your favorite fantasy novel doesn't mean it's true or that you get to decide the canon policy for that universe. I don't get to claim I'm descended from Superman and therefore Issue #5464 is non-canon, so why should it be any different for the Bible fandom?
If Superman said to someone : I charge you with maintaining my legacy here on earth while I go off into space, what makes that person unable to decide the canon policy?
You don't get to claim descent from Superman because he did not appoint anyone to be the guardian of his church. Unlike Jesus who appointed Peter who then had the authority to appoint others.
When the first line of the website says "Unlike the mythical Jesus Christ..." I don't think it's a credible source. An exhaustively researched website that does not cite any of the books claimed as its sources and cites a prominent atheist in Michael Grant as it's main source for Jesus related materials is hardly credible.
See? I can do this too... I'm sure plenty of people in the below link will tell you that jesus did exist.
.. does that site offer any attempt to back up the preposterous claim that there's more evidence for Jesus than there is Julius Caeser ?
A claim made first, to the best of my knowledge, by various "interested parties" around the time of Mel Gibson's religious paen.
From Julius Caesar's reign, we have plenty of historical artifacts, both archaeological and literary, attesting to his existence--coins, sculptures, writings by him (The Gallic Wars) and about him by contemporaries (e.g., Cicero).
Compared to Caesar, we have virtually no documented evidence about Christ from his lifetime. In fact, all the earliest historical documents that refer to Christ--the Gospels, Paul's letters, and Josephus and Tacitus's accounts--were all written after his death.
I don't doubt the historical existence of a person or eprsons that could or could not Christ, , but certainly Caesar's existence is much better documented.
Phototoxin wrote: If Superman said to someone : I charge you with maintaining my legacy here on earth while I go off into space, what makes that person unable to decide the canon policy?
You don't get to claim descent from Superman because he did not appoint anyone to be the guardian of his church. Unlike Jesus who appointed Peter who then had the authority to appoint others.
Except we don't have evidence of Jesus actually doing that (which would be hard for a fictional character), we have members of the Bible fandom claiming that Jesus said that. If I claimed that Superman appointed me guardian of his legacy you'd laugh at me and ignore my demands, all I'm saying is that we should do the same for the unfortunately deluded fans of the Jesus novels.
Actually Catholicsm has likened the Spirit to spohia, wisdom, which is something god loves. In addition it has ascention of Jesus and Mary and a couple of Old testament dudes into heaven.
The Holy Spirit is more comparable to Pleroma than Sophia and even that is a crappy comparison because Pleroma has a completely different roll and purpose (the only similarity is being spirity willness stuff, but Pleroma more likely spawned from Hellenized Zorastrianism, since the Holy Spirit wasn't a defined concept till after Gnosticism had started dying out).
Sophia in Gnosticism is more than just wisdom. It's a deity like force itself that spawned the Demiurge... which is somehow the creator of everything, and somehow different from Monad (and other Archons)... and somehow Sophia is also one of the lowest Aeons alongside the Aeon that would be Christ...
Gnosticism is a gak storm of confusion for anyone who hasn't caught on btw. Honestly, I can't even tell if Gnosticism is polytheistic or monotheistic. I don't think they ever made up their minds XD They seem to have a little bit of the Brahman syndrome going on maybe. EDIT: Actually, Gnosticism and its baffling series of beliefs are either a) the product of being a mystery religion and trying to be mysterious or b/ the product of having no centralized religious authority XD Probably a mix of both.
Since when were these doctors jesus himself? They had their biases which were expressed in their writings but none of it is doctrine.
I never said it was Jesus, you asked where I got it from. As to it not being doctrine: is there an emorkicon for laughing in someone face?
Do you even know what a doctor of the church is?
Doesn't really matter what he meant, what he said was foolish, what he meant was to discredit my source as relevant to Christianity. In that he fails utterly regardless of what he meant.
d-usa wrote: Nothing in the ministry of Jesus looses any value or meaning if he was in fact married.
This guy knows what's up.
I don't see what the big deal is really. I mean, yes, it's very interesting to talk about about, but at the end of the day, it doesn't really change anything from a theological standpoint.
Do you guys really believe that?
It makes all the difference in the world, actually. If Jesus was truly married, his ministry would mean nothing, and I would believe him to be no more than a liar and a hypocrite.
I'll attack this from a few angles.
My first argument:
According to Scripture, all men are sinful. Jesus was perfect, and had a sinless life, thus making the perfect sacrifice for our sins. If he had sinned but once, his death would be meaningless. Now, when a man marries a woman, there flesh becomes one, according to the scriptures, so Jesus would become one with an imperfect human, making himself an imperfect sacrifice... making his substitutionary death meaningless.
Another argument:
As I briefly said earlier in this thread, the Church was seen as the metaphorical bride of Christ. That is, the Church was his life. He lead it, he loved it, he served it. If he had a human wife, she would demand the same kind of attention, and it would draw away from his ministry, his purpose here on earth. Jesus being perfect would not give all his time to one women when he could be ministering to the many who did not know God.
Another:
It was considered a utterly crime, an abomination, when angels and men had sex or whatever they did to make the nephilim... I would imagine it to be even moreso of an abomination if Jesus, God and man, was tied to a human woman.
Just my thoughts.I know that these arguments aren't all completely solid.
d-usa wrote: Nothing in the ministry of Jesus looses any value or meaning if he was in fact married.
This guy knows what's up.
I don't see what the big deal is really. I mean, yes, it's very interesting to talk about about, but at the end of the day, it doesn't really change anything from a theological standpoint.
Do you guys really believe that?
It makes all the difference in the world, actually. If Jesus was truly married, his ministry would mean nothing, and I would believe him to be no more than a liar and a hypocrite.
And I really don't see why this should be considered newsworthy. We don't publish news articles when a bunch of comic book fans decide that Superman #9290430234 (published in 1964) got his costume color wrong and should be considered non-canon, so why should we act like it's a newsworthy event when some Bible fans have a dispute over canon policy in their fictional universe?
Well, there is an entire period during the Silver Age of DC where the writer(s) of Superman comics claim that all the "what if"-style stories actually are canon, despite what DC's overall stance has been. This creates a few problems, particularly that it means Lois Lane has died more times than Resurrection Man. And also, that Superman married a mermaid.
There's more evidence for Jesus' existance than for Julius Caesar.
This is one of the dumbest things I've read in my lifetime. There is more evidence for Caesar's existance than there is for my own, and I live in a country that exalts government bureacrats. The historical Jesus (that is, some guy named Jesus circa 1-33 AD) I believe has some sort of records. However, everything claiming he could fly and shoot lazers from his eyes appear to be crap that was just added about 300 years later, and plagiarized from the myth of Horus.
Frazzled wrote:The Eye of the Great Wiener is always watching.
I... I don't think that sounded like what you intended it to.
You are quite right in that Gnosticism is different from Christianity.
However, what says that everything that was excluded in Nice(sp?) was Gnostic?
To me, it seems more like a lot of the things that was excluded from the Bible, may just have been called "Gnostic" because those who gathered simply disliked the view on how those other gospels and scriptures described Jesus, and/or what Jesus did.
I can, at best, consider that they saw those texts commonly studied by gnostics, and thus thought that they were false by association.
By the way, i do not know about gnostics at that time, but it do seem that gnostics today makes a difference between the Demiurge and Yaweh(the Christian God).
Also, the gnostic's idea is to gather Knowledge ... I assume the christians at that time did not know that.
d-usa wrote: Nothing in the ministry of Jesus looses any value or meaning if he was in fact married.
This guy knows what's up.
I don't see what the big deal is really. I mean, yes, it's very interesting to talk about about, but at the end of the day, it doesn't really change anything from a theological standpoint.
Do you guys really believe that?
It makes all the difference in the world, actually. If Jesus was truly married, his ministry would mean nothing, and I would believe him to be no more than a liar and a hypocrite.
The equivalent argument to this is that Siddhārtha Gautama Buddha trod on a grasshopper once by mistake or had some lamb and therefore his entire ministry and practice is lies and deceit.
It makes all the difference in the world, actually. If Jesus was truly married, his ministry would mean nothing, and I would believe him to be no more than a liar and a hypocrite.
I'll attack this from a few angles.
My first argument:
According to Scripture, all men are sinful. Jesus was perfect, and had a sinless life, thus making the perfect sacrifice for our sins. If he had sinned but once, his death would be meaningless. Now, when a man marries a woman, there flesh becomes one, according to the scriptures, so Jesus would become one with an imperfect human, making himself an imperfect sacrifice... making his substitutionary death meaningless.
Another argument:
As I briefly said earlier in this thread, the Church was seen as the metaphorical bride of Christ. That is, the Church was his life. He lead it, he loved it, he served it. If he had a human wife, she would demand the same kind of attention, and it would draw away from his ministry, his purpose here on earth. Jesus being perfect would not give all his time to one women when he could be ministering to the many who did not know God.
Another:
It was considered a utterly crime, an abomination, when angels and men had sex or whatever they did to make the nephilim... I would imagine it to be even moreso of an abomination if Jesus, God and man, was tied to a human woman.
Just my thoughts.I know that these arguments aren't all completely solid.
Your arguments are metaphysical ones, and I'm not a theolgoian. But they do nothing to suggest that his teachings would in any way be incorrect. They certainly don't paint him as a hypocrite.
And his death wasn't meaningful because he was without sin. He's divine, and as sin is acting against the will of the divine, he can't possibly be sinful. His death is meaningful because he actually died (and in some traditions spent three days in hell).
It's also a potent miracle. Nothing shows divinty quite like rising from the dead, only to later ascend to heaven on your own power.
d-usa wrote: Nothing in the ministry of Jesus looses any value or meaning if he was in fact married.
This guy knows what's up.
I don't see what the big deal is really. I mean, yes, it's very interesting to talk about about, but at the end of the day, it doesn't really change anything from a theological standpoint.
Do you guys really believe that?
It makes all the difference in the world, actually. If Jesus was truly married, his ministry would mean nothing, and I would believe him to be no more than a liar and a hypocrite.
The equivalent argument to this is that Siddhārtha Gautama Buddha trod on a grasshopper once by mistake or had some lamb and therefore his entire ministry and practice is lies and deceit.
Not seeing how being married violates a god damn thing he said.
It does explain that one line in Timothy, pondered over for years: " And Jesus dideth take a long walk to Galilee for was henpecketh, and his ears doth hurt."
d-usa wrote: Nothing in the ministry of Jesus looses any value or meaning if he was in fact married.
This guy knows what's up.
I don't see what the big deal is really. I mean, yes, it's very interesting to talk about about, but at the end of the day, it doesn't really change anything from a theological standpoint.
Do you guys really believe that?
It makes all the difference in the world, actually. If Jesus was truly married, his ministry would mean nothing, and I would believe him to be no more than a liar and a hypocrite.
The equivalent argument to this is that Siddhārtha Gautama Buddha trod on a grasshopper once by mistake or had some lamb and therefore his entire ministry and practice is lies and deceit.
Not much of a Buddhist scholar are you?
I know a reasonable amount for a non-believer, the statement is meant to be as ludicrous as the argument above it.
It does explain that one line in Timothy, pondered over for years: " And Jesus dideth take a long walk to Galilee for was henpecketh, and his ears doth hurt."
To me, it seems more like a lot of the things that was excluded from the Bible, may just have been called "Gnostic" because those who gathered simply disliked the view on how those other gospels and scriptures described Jesus, and/or what Jesus did.
Some books were certainly excluded for such a reason but it isn't like this was a single decision by a small group of people at one point of time. The Bible wasn't finalized until eight or nine centuries after the life the Jesus. There were dozens of councils with thousands of church leaders involved. Because of Gnosticism geographic proximity and usage of Jesus, Christians at the time did believe it to have spawned directly off of their faith and there are several papers that were written against it.
I can, at best, consider that they saw those texts commonly studied by gnostics, and thus thought that they were false by association.
Probably, but Gnosticism being a separate religious doctrine, I fail to see how that's much of a problem for Christians.
By the way, i do not know about gnostics at that time, but it do seem that gnostics today makes a difference between the Demiurge and Yaweh(the Christian God).
The Demiurge is the OT god, but he's just a lower emanation of the ultimate being who is either dead or fractured? I'm not really sure. Reading Gnostic stuff gives me headaches. Its hard to parallel any of Gnosticisms god figures to Christianity's god, but the Demiurge is in their system the god of the Old Testament, while the New Testament excludes this god in favor of Manod and Jesus. But I don't think the Gnostics ever did much with the Old Testament.
I don't know what modern gnostics might think. There's so few of them that their modern beliefs get ignored by scholars since the major focus is on the parallel development alongside Christianity and shared influences with one another during the 2nd century especially.
Also, the gnostic's idea is to gather Knowledge ... I assume the christians at that time did not know that.
Well Christians made numerous false assumptions about the Gnostics in their own time (people today have numerous false assumptions about Gnosticism). The point of Gnosticism is to free the spirit from the slavery it exists in under the Demiurge and enter a higher plain of existence through the paths shown by the Aeons. Jesus Christ was incorporated by Gnostics as a lower Aeon (though they're ideas of his works are much more focused on spiritual mysticism. Anyone familiar with Hinduism is actually gonna see a lot of similarity to Gnosticism. In Gnosticism, a soul is saved by freeing itself through Gnosis which is a specific kind of knowledge concerning the spirit.
AustonT wrote: Doesn't really matter what he meant, what he said was foolish, what he meant was to discredit my source as relevant to Christianity. In that he fails utterly regardless of what he meant.
Well, it is true that none of them determined anything that is a matter of dogma. And all of them are thought of as not so good on at least a few subjects.
"Some books were certainly excluded for such a reason" So, you agree on that, and yet you find no problem with it? Like that they ditched the Gospel of Thomas perhaps only on two or three grounds: It spoke of Salome defining herself as a diciple of Jesus; they did not understand some comments in it, and/or the gospel was studied by Gnostics.
How many other Gospels suffered that fate for that reason, that could have made Christianity more complete?
Gospel of Judas?
Gospel of Mary?
"There were dozens of councils with thousands of church leaders involved".
But what says that some then simply decided together anyway what to be and what not to be, and any who did not follow it was defined as gnostics?
It could simply be another case of If you are not with us, you are DOOMED thing.
Really, i find Peregrine's comparison of the whole thing to a comic fandom to be more "on spot" than you seem to think.
The difference between me and him, though, is that i consider this thing as serious, and i also know a thing or two about gnosticism(not much, but enough) as well as about how people prefer to protect what they know if they feel preassured, even if that "knowledge" actually is incorrect.
I have also read the Gospel of Thomas, and i wonder what could be considered "Gnostic" in it.
That humaniy is unfinished in its creation? Heh, as if the whole thing about Jesus' sacrifice isn't a proof of that humanity is unfinished in its creation ...
I can, at best, consider that they saw those texts commonly studied by gnostics, and thus thought that they were false by association.
"Probably, but Gnosticism being a separate religious doctrine, I fail to see how that's much of a problem for Christians." I am not talking about Gnosticism here, i'm talking about valid Gospels that may have been mistaken or "mistaken" for Gnostic scriptures!
See the difference?
Tiina Brown wrote: So, you agree on that, and yet you find no problem with it?
Um, considering the MASSIVE quantity of writings produced by Christians, it's horribly impractical to include them all. A purpose was set out by all the canonization councils, and that was to put together a collection of texts that could best surmize Christian beliefs in as short a space as possible (with a preference towards the oldest documents available, and a lot of documents ended up forgotten after the first 100 years or so).
Like that they ditched the Gospel of Thomas perhaps only on two or three grounds: It spoke of Salome defining herself as a diciple of Jesus; they did not understand some comments in it, and/or the gospel was studied by Gnostics.
Specifically Thomas was excluded because it is a Sayings gospel. It's just a collection of quotes. Councils excluded these as lacking proper context sufficient for canonization. EDIT: I should say 'probably' here, as it doesn't seem any sayings gospels were considered for canonization, going off the assumption Thomas wasn't the only one which seems probable.
How many other Gospels suffered that fate for that reason, that could have made Christianity more complete?
That would depend on how you define complete. Arian texts for example, were certainly excluded solely for being Arian (or even produced by an Arian) and that might be a problem, but then I've never felt the Arian debate is modernly relevant to anything. Or even at the times of the early church really. I kind of wonder why a works focused movement would care so much about Jesus' physical existence (though oddly the Gnostics may have sparked that debate in the church).
Gospel of Judas?
Th Gospel of Judas is a Gnostic text.
Gospel of Mary?
Despite being commonly called a Gospel, the gospel of Mary isn't actually a gospel (we believe, the text is not complete in modern times). It might also be Gnostic but we don't really know without the other half of the piece. It's also from the 5th Century, by which point most of the books in the running for canonization had already be determined (the Bible as we have it now was in form by at least the late 2nd century before official canonization).
But what says that some then simply decided together anyway what to be and what not to be, and any who did not follow it was defined as gnostics?
Because once you hit the 4th century, Gnosticism is on the down swing and it ceases to be an issue for the early church.
Really, i find Peregrine's comparison of the whole thing to a comic fandom to be more "on spot" than you seem to think.
Sigh. Go look up false analogy. The reason his comparison is stupid is because comparing a religious text (or collection of) created to sum up the beliefs of a group to a comic book made for the sole purpose of monetary gain is a stupid comparison. Insult it by calling it a fantasy novel, but comparing the Bible to any typical work of fiction is ignoring a mountain of nuance and a lot of common sense. It also shows a horrible lack of understanding as to how the Bible came to be, but I kind of expect that these days. A better comparison is looking at comic books 200 years from now and try to separate Deadpool from Deathstroke.
I have also read the Gospel of Thomas, and i wonder what could be considered "Gnostic" in it.
That's because its probably not. EDIT: It's was considered Gnostic for a long time because the copy we have was found in the Nag Hammadi library alongside a large number of Gnostic texts. The collection was generalized to be a Gnostic collection but that's now called into question as an unsupported assumption. It could just be a generalized collection of texts that a Gnostic or Christian scholar of the 2nd or 3rd century might of had lying around. Most likely a collection belonging to a proto-Coptic church father, as Gnosticism and Christianity had no greater proximity to one another than in Egypt and Coptic Christianity reflects that influence.
I am not talking about Gnosticism here, i'm talking about valid Gospels that may have been mistaken or "mistaken" for Gnostic scriptures!
See the difference?
Good luck finding any book that was excluded without a good reason. I doubt we have a copy of everything ever produced (hell I'm dead sure we don't), but the lack of understanding about how the Bible came to be baffles me. It was probably the most democratic process you'll ever find in Christian history, took about a thousand years, and the books that we know were excluded got excluded for good (or at least understandable) reasons. Hell some of these books despite being rejected for canonization, still ended up effecting doctrine. The Book of James is the origin of the doctrine of perpetual virginity of Mary. At the time the Bible was being formed, being rejected for inclusion was not the same as being untrue.
Tiina Brown wrote: I am not talking about Gnosticism here, i'm talking about valid Gospels that may have been mistaken or "mistaken" for Gnostic scriptures!
See the difference?
Good luck finding any book that was excluded without a good reason. I doubt we have a copy of everything ever produced (hell I'm dead sure we don't), but the lack of understanding about how the Bible came to be baffles me. It was probably the most democratic process you'll ever find in Christian history, took about a thousand years, and the books that we know were excluded got excluded for good (or at least understandable) reasons. Hell some of these books despite being rejected for canonization, still ended up effecting doctrine. The Book of James is the origin of the doctrine of perpetual virginity of Mary. At the time the Bible was being formed, being rejected for inclusion was not the same as being untrue.
This pretty much sums up your reasoning, or rather the part i find disturbing.
You were not there, and neither were i.
You say it happened in a democratic fashion, but i find that quite improbable.
Discussions were held, of course, and attempts to reason were also done, but what says that any of those had any effect on the bible?
It took a thousand years? As far as i know, the official design of the Bible were defined in Nice (still unsure of the spelling), and anything after that were rather to enforce that form on others.
But still, if you are correct, that just show how long it took to get people to agree on that the bible should look in a certain way, rather that defining its form.
An interesting thing, is that the only originals that is said to exist, in the Vatican of course, is Paul's letters here and there.
There is no known originals of the Gospels, at least ...
And if they wanted to add books representing christianity, then why did they choose 4 books that says pretty much the same?
Why not include at least one book with sayings, such as Thomas?
And by the way, while i'm at it, if you now are so certain that the Gospel of Judas is Gnostic, then what is it about it that says so?
EDIT:
And "excluded for a good/understandable reason" by those people at that time, do not mean it would not have made more semse today.
AustonT wrote: Doesn't really matter what he meant, what he said was foolish, what he meant was to discredit my source as relevant to Christianity. In that he fails utterly regardless of what he meant.
Well, it is true that none of them determined anything that is a matter of dogma. And all of them are thought of as not so good on at least a few subjects.
d-usa wrote: Nothing in the ministry of Jesus looses any value or meaning if he was in fact married.
This guy knows what's up.
I don't see what the big deal is really. I mean, yes, it's very interesting to talk about about, but at the end of the day, it doesn't really change anything from a theological standpoint.
Do you guys really believe that?
It makes all the difference in the world, actually. If Jesus was truly married, his ministry would mean nothing, and I would believe him to be no more than a liar and a hypocrite.
The equivalent argument to this is that Siddhārtha Gautama Buddha trod on a grasshopper once by mistake or had some lamb and therefore his entire ministry and practice is lies and deceit.
Not much of a Buddhist scholar are you?
I know a reasonable amount for a non-believer, the statement is meant to be as ludicrous as the argument above it.
\
Except its not similar at all. Siddhartha eating lamb would not invalidate his teachings at all. He was a prince. They tend to eat good things. Factual evidence of Jesus having a wife would cast doubt for a lot of followers. Maybe not for you but it would shock the church to the core. But there is also zero evidence for it and there never will be so you are kinda right, its a non-issue.
DutchKillsRambo wrote: Factual evidence of Jesus having a wife would cast doubt for a lot of followers. But there is also zero evidence for it and there never will be so you are kinda right, its a non-issue.
Unless say a ketubah or similar marriage document is found and dated, Stranger things have happened.
Philip Harland wrote:Walter Bauer and Diversity (Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, 1932, translated into English in the 1970s): Walter Bauer wrote what can be considered among the most influential works in the study of early Christianity. Turning the traditional theory of Eusebius on its head, Walter argued that heresy came first, orthodoxy later. Not only that, but the various forms of Christianity often called “heresies” were, in fact, in the majority. When orthodoxy began to emerge in the second and subsequent centuries, it continued as the minority for some time until the church at Rome increased its hold on Christianity elsewhere. Walter continued to use the terms “orthodoxy” and “heresy” despite the fact that his own theory began to deconstruct these very notions. Most who study early Christianity now recognize that, although Walter’s theory clearly has its problems, Walter was at least correct in emphasizing that various forms of Christianity existed from early on, and that “orthodoxy” only developed later in an attempt to get the diversity under some control. He was also correct in deconstructing the Eusebian view of the orthodox, united church threatened by later heresies, which does not accurately reflect what actually went on in the first centuries of Christianity.
Obviously not perfect, but it's also not exactly recent. There's plenty of scholarship that has come to the conclusion that Paul and Pauline Xnity were a significant divergence from Jesus and Petrine Xnity and that eventual orthodoxy was the combination, largely to the detriment of the doctrines established by Peter whom as you have quoted ITT Jesus charged to found the church.
Wait, so you're telling me there was no need to develop a right answer until people started to get it wrong? I am familiar with an ecumenical council, you know.
It's written by one of the most well respected/known bible scholars in the world; Bart Ehrman. It speaks on how early Christian scribes deemphasized women in the church--and the various clerical errors that have been stitched together from text to text. Excellent read.
Manchu wrote: Wait, so you're telling me there was no need to develop a right answer until people started to get it wrong? I am familiar with an ecumenical council, you know.
I'll do my best but I don't think you answered my Wonka and I'm not totally sure what yours was getting at.
Until recently, the canons of the Church have specified the only purpose of marriage to be procreation. Now marriage is considered to have many purposes, among which is companionship. Sex, properly contextualized by a emotionally healthy sacramental marriage, is certainly understood as a good.
Manchu wrote:I'll do my best but I don't think you answered my Wonka and I'm not totally sure what yours was getting at.
Until recently, the canons of the Church have specified the only purpose of marriage to be procreation. Now marriage is considered to have many purposes, among which is companionship. Sex, properly contextualized by a emotionally healthy sacramental marriage, is certainly understood as a good.
No, I'm pretty sure transfers of property were also included in the church's reasoning for marriage.
It's written by one of the most well respected/known bible scholars in the world; Bart Ehrman. It speaks on how early Christian scribes deemphasized women in the church--and the various clerical errors that have been stitched together from text to text. Excellent read.
I was trying to stay out of the thread until this.
This is why I mentioned the problem with relying on Ehrman earlier in the thread, and refrained from getting back in, when the "Glen Beck" stuff started.
Sure...have fun reading Misquoting Jesus...but then you should also read Misquoting Truth which was Dr. Timothy Paul Jones' response. Dr.TPJ is hardly Glen Beck. Also recommend watching some of Dr. James White & Bart Ehrman's debates.
It's real easy to read a work like Ehrman's and believe him unquestionably, than to to do your own scholarly research on the subject.
Now that I'm on the subject... there are many books on the subject of how the Bible was compiled..I recommend that the participants in this thread read some books on the subject instead of attempting to guess at how the canonization of the bible happened.
I actually have read Misquoting Truth--it sits about 4 books down on my shelf from Misquoting Jesus . Nothing against the text but it struck me more as a rather long, ranty ad hominem more than a piece of scholarly text--the Amazon reviews are rather frightful. Opinions may vary of course
AustonT wrote: Doesn't really matter what he meant, what he said was foolish, what he meant was to discredit my source as relevant to Christianity. In that he fails utterly regardless of what he meant.
Well, it is true that none of them determined anything that is a matter of dogma. And all of them are thought of as not so good on at least a few subjects.
This is for you:
"God created man in his own image . . . male and female he created them"; He blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and multiply"; "When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created."
Sexuality affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul. It especially concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and to procreate, and in a more general way the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others.
Everyone, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity. Physical, moral, and spiritual difference and complementarity are oriented toward the goods of marriage and the flourishing of family life. The harmony of the couple and of society depends in part on the way in which the complementarity, needs, and mutual support between the sexes are lived out.
"In creating men 'male and female,' God gives man and woman an equal personal dignity.""Man is a person, man and woman equally so, since both were created in the image and likeness of the personal God."
Each of the two sexes is an image of the power and tenderness of God, with equal dignity though in a different way. The union of man and woman in marriage is a way of imitating in the flesh the Creator's generosity and fecundity: "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh."121 All human generations proceed from this union.
2336 Jesus came to restore creation to the purity of its origins. In the Sermon on the Mount, he interprets God's plan strictly: "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."123 What God has joined together, let not man put asunder.Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion. Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament.
"Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death."
Tobias got out of bed and said to Sarah, "Sister, get up, and let us pray and implore our Lord that he grant us mercy and safety." So she got up, and they began to pray and implore that they might be kept safe. Tobias began by saying, "Blessed are you, O God of our fathers. . . . You made Adam, and for him you made his wife Eve as a helper and support. From the two of them the race of mankind has sprung. You said, 'It is not good that the man should be alone; let us make a helper for him like himself.' I now am taking this kinswoman of mine, not because of lust, but with sincerity. Grant that she and I may find mercy and that we may grow old together." And they both said, "Amen, Amen." Then they went to sleep for the night.
"The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude." Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure
The Creator himself . . . established that in the function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.
Manchu wrote: I'll do my best but I don't think you answered my Wonka and I'm not totally sure what yours was getting at.
You said to tell you about Orthodoxy, und so I did. If your not sure what I'm getting at maybe you should read upthread to the person I was actually responding to originally.
It's written by one of the most well respected/known bible scholars in the world; Bart Ehrman. It speaks on how early Christian scribes deemphasized women in the church--and the various clerical errors that have been stitched together from text to text. Excellent read.
Dr.TPJ is hardly Glen Beck. Also recommend watching some of Dr. James White & Bart Ehrman's debates.
I'll try not to laugh. With such scholarly hits like "Finding God in a Galaxy Far, Far Away:A Spiritual Exploration of the Star Wars Saga," "Guide to End-Times Prophecy," and "Trained in the Fear of God: Family Ministry in Theological, Historical, and Practical Perspective" He has really established himself as a researcher of note. In other words: No, just no. I love that you hung Dr on the front of James White, I have a certificate that says I'm a spaceshuttle door gunner that I got off the internet too. His literary gems include "What's With the Mutant in the Microscope: Stuff to Know When Science Says Your Uncle Is a Monkey," and "The Same Sex Controversy: Defending and Clarifying the Bible's Message About Homosexuality." You really brought the big guns on this one. If TPJ is Glenn Beck, White is Rush Limbaugh. I mean what serious bible scholar DOESN'T check Star Wars or discard evolution as pseudo-science, oh that's right scholars
It's real easy to read a work like Ehrman's and believe him unquestionably, than to to do your own scholarly research on the subject.
You should take your own advise, start with finding scholars instead of personalities. Just so my utter scorn isn't just implied: As a contrasting point to Misquoting Jesus Jones and White are like high school math students writing in opposition to Einstein.
Manchu wrote: I'll do my best but I don't think you answered my Wonka and I'm not totally sure what yours was getting at.
You said to tell you about Orthodoxy, und so I did. If your not sure what I'm getting at maybe you should read upthread to the person I was actually responding to originally.
It's written by one of the most well respected/known bible scholars in the world; Bart Ehrman. It speaks on how early Christian scribes deemphasized women in the church--and the various clerical errors that have been stitched together from text to text. Excellent read.
Dr.TPJ is hardly Glen Beck. Also recommend watching some of Dr. James White & Bart Ehrman's debates.
I'll try not to laugh. With such scholarly hits like "Finding God in a Galaxy Far, Far Away:A Spiritual Exploration of the Star Wars Saga," "Guide to End-Times Prophecy," and "Trained in the Fear of God: Family Ministry in Theological, Historical, and Practical Perspective" He has really established himself as a researcher of note. In other words: No, just no. I love that you hung Dr on the front of James White, I have a certificate that says I'm a spaceshuttle door gunner that I got off the internet too. His literary gems include "What's With the Mutant in the Microscope: Stuff to Know When Science Says Your Uncle Is a Monkey," and "The Same Sex Controversy: Defending and Clarifying the Bible's Message About Homosexuality." You really brought the big guns on this one. If TPJ is Glenn Beck, White is Rush Limbaugh. I mean what serious bible scholar DOESN'T check Star Wars or discard evolution as pseudo-science, oh that's right scholars
It's real easy to read a work like Ehrman's and believe him unquestionably, than to to do your own scholarly research on the subject.
You should take your own advise, start with finding scholars instead of personalities. Just so my utter scorn isn't just implied: As a contrasting point to Misquoting Jesus Jones and White are like high school math students writing in opposition to Einstein.
I can sum your whole post up as follows.
Ad Hominem.
I like how you conveniently pick 1 book of Dr. Whites and try and present him as a Limbaugh. here lets give the man proper credit shall we.
Justification by Faith. Crowne Publications, November 1, 1990. ISBN 0-925703-40-0.
Answers to Catholic Claims. Crowne Publications, November 1, 1990. ISBN 0-925703-36-2.
God's Sovereign Grace. Crowne Publications, April 1, 1991. ISBN 0-925703-41-9.
Letters to a Mormon Elder. Crowne Publications, April 1, 1991. ISBN 0-925703-59-1.
The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations?. Bethany House Publishers, March 1, 1995. ISBN 1-55661-575-2.
The Roman Catholic Controversy. Bethany House Publishers, July 1, 1996. ISBN 1-55661-819-0.
Grieving: Our Path Back to Peace. Bethany House Publishers, August 1, 1997. ISBN 0-7642-2000-4.
Is the Mormon My Brother?: Discerning the Differences Between Mormonism and Christianity. Bethany House Publishers, November 1, 1997. ISBN 0-7642-2047-0.
What's With the Dudes at the Door? (w/ Kevin Johnson). Bethany House Publishers, May 1, 1998. ISBN 0-7642-2070-5.
Mary-Another Redeemer?. Bethany House Publishers, July 1, 1998. ISBN 0-7642-2102-7.
The Forgotten Trinity: Recovering the Heart of Christian Belief. Bethany House Publishers, November 1, 1998. ISBN 1-55661-725-9.
What's With the Mutant in the Microscope: Stuff to Know When Science Says Your Uncle Is a Monkey. (w/ Kevin Johnson) Bethany House Publishers, October 1, 1999. ISBN 0-7642-2187-6.
The Potter's Freedom: A Defense of the Reformation and the Rebuttal of Norman Geisler's Chosen But Free. Calvary Press; Revised edition edition May 15, 2000. ISBN 1-879737-43-4
The God Who Justifies. Bethany House Publishers, August 1, 2001. ISBN 0-7642-2288-0.
The Same Sex Controversy: Defending and Clarifying the Bible's Message About Homosexuality (w/ Jeffrey D. Niell). Bethany House Publishers, April 1, 2002. ISBN 0-7642-2524-3.
Debating Calvinism: Five Points, Two Views (w/ Dave Hunt). Multnomah Publications, February 1, 2004. ISBN 1-59052-273-7.
Stan Norman (editor); Chad Brand (editor); James Leo Garrett, Jr.; Robert L. Reymond; James R. White; Paul F. M. Zahl; Daniel L. Akin (editor); R. Stanton Norman (editor). Perspectives on Church Government: Five Views of Church Polity. Broadman & Holman Publications, July 1, 2004. ISBN 0-8054-2590-X.
Scripture Alone: Exploring The Bible's Accuracy, Authority, And Authenticity. Bethany House Publishers, October 1, 2004. ISBN 0-7642-2048-9.
Pulpit Crimes: The Criminal Mishandling of God's Word. Solid Ground Christian Books October 26, 2006. ISBN 1-59925-090-X
From Toronto to Emmaus: The Empty Tomb and the Journey from Skepticism to Faith. Solid Ground Christian Books March 27, 2007. ISBN 1-59925-112-4
Formal debates
"Is the Bible True?" vs. Robert M. Price, May, 2010, aboard ship on the Carnival Legend
"Did the Bible Misquote Jesus?" vs. Bart Ehrman, January, 2009, aboard ship on the Celebrity Century
"Is Homosexuality Compatible with Authentic, Biblical, Orthodox Christianity?" vs. John Shelby Spong, November, 2006, Orlando, FL
"Is the New Testament We Possess Today Inspired?" vs. Shabir Ally, May, 2006, La Mirada, CA "The Resurrection of Jesus Christ", vs. Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan (with James Renihan), August, 2005, aboard ship on the Sun Princess
"Is the Orthodox, Biblical Account of Jesus of Nazareth Authentic & Historically Accurate?", vs. John Dominic Crossan, August, 2005, Seattle, WA "Are Roman Catholics Our Brothers and Sisters in Christ?", vs. Douglas Wilson, November, 2004, Los Angeles, CA "Is Homosexuality Consistent with Biblical Christianity", vs. Barry Lynn, May, 2001, Long Island, NY
"The Papacy", vs. Fr. Mitch Pacwa, SJ, May, 1998, Long Island, NY
"Sola Scriptura", vs. Gerry Matatics, August, 1990, Long Beach, CA
I'm not a Dr. White apologist, but am just appalled by the way you just castigate a person as a "nonscholar" because he takes a different scholarly opinon than Ehrman. Please note how I didn't castigate or denounce Ehrman as a lunatic or idiot..just misguided.
Dr. Jones has written 32 books, but there isn't an easy way to copy paste his. Again you do the gentlemen a disservice much as you did Mr. white.
I like how you conveniently pick 1 book of Dr. Whites and try and present him as a Limbaugh. here lets give the man proper credit shall we.
Sorry, but anyone who writes a book defending creationism is a gullible idiot, and it's safe to ignore anything else they have to say. Unless he's apologized for his mistakes and stopped publishing the book his credibility is slightly below the crazy guy with a sign yelling about how you're going to hell.
I like how you conveniently pick 1 book of Dr. Whites and try and present him as a Limbaugh. here lets give the man proper credit shall we.
Sorry, but anyone who writes a book defending creationism is a gullible idiot, and it's safe to ignore anything else they have to say. Unless he's apologized for his mistakes and stopped publishing the book his credibility is slightly below the crazy guy with a sign yelling about how you're going to hell.
Again..he might be a creationist therefore he is wrong about evrything else..classic Ad hominem fallacy.
AustonT wrote: Doesn't really matter what he meant, what he said was foolish, what he meant was to discredit my source as relevant to Christianity. In that he fails utterly regardless of what he meant.
Well, it is true that none of them determined anything that is a matter of dogma. And all of them are thought of as not so good on at least a few subjects.
This is for you:
"God created man in his own image . . . male and female he created them"; He blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and multiply"; "When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created."
Sexuality affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul. It especially concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and to procreate, and in a more general way the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others.
Everyone, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity. Physical, moral, and spiritual difference and complementarity are oriented toward the goods of marriage and the flourishing of family life. The harmony of the couple and of society depends in part on the way in which the complementarity, needs, and mutual support between the sexes are lived out.
"In creating men 'male and female,' God gives man and woman an equal personal dignity.""Man is a person, man and woman equally so, since both were created in the image and likeness of the personal God."
Each of the two sexes is an image of the power and tenderness of God, with equal dignity though in a different way. The union of man and woman in marriage is a way of imitating in the flesh the Creator's generosity and fecundity: "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh."121 All human generations proceed from this union.
2336 Jesus came to restore creation to the purity of its origins. In the Sermon on the Mount, he interprets God's plan strictly: "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."123 What God has joined together, let not man put asunder.Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion. Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament.
"Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death."
Tobias got out of bed and said to Sarah, "Sister, get up, and let us pray and implore our Lord that he grant us mercy and safety." So she got up, and they began to pray and implore that they might be kept safe. Tobias began by saying, "Blessed are you, O God of our fathers. . . . You made Adam, and for him you made his wife Eve as a helper and support. From the two of them the race of mankind has sprung. You said, 'It is not good that the man should be alone; let us make a helper for him like himself.' I now am taking this kinswoman of mine, not because of lust, but with sincerity. Grant that she and I may find mercy and that we may grow old together." And they both said, "Amen, Amen." Then they went to sleep for the night.
"The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude." Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure
The Creator himself . . . established that in the function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.
[spoiler]
Allow me to remind you what you originally responded to:
There were some interesting Christian rites before normatized Christianity. One tha remained pretty steady was the sex made the body unclean
20th century=AFTER normatized xnity. You are welcome to come back when you find something relevant to what you quoted in the first place. Good luck on your trip
Manchu wrote: I'll do my best but I don't think you answered my Wonka and I'm not totally sure what yours was getting at.
You said to tell you about Orthodoxy, und so I did. If your not sure what I'm getting at maybe you should read upthread to the person I was actually responding to originally.
It's written by one of the most well respected/known bible scholars in the world; Bart Ehrman. It speaks on how early Christian scribes deemphasized women in the church--and the various clerical errors that have been stitched together from text to text. Excellent read.
Dr.TPJ is hardly Glen Beck. Also recommend watching some of Dr. James White & Bart Ehrman's debates.
I'll try not to laugh. With such scholarly hits like "Finding God in a Galaxy Far, Far Away:A Spiritual Exploration of the Star Wars Saga," "Guide to End-Times Prophecy," and "Trained in the Fear of God: Family Ministry in Theological, Historical, and Practical Perspective" He has really established himself as a researcher of note. In other words: No, just no. I love that you hung Dr on the front of James White, I have a certificate that says I'm a spaceshuttle door gunner that I got off the internet too. His literary gems include "What's With the Mutant in the Microscope: Stuff to Know When Science Says Your Uncle Is a Monkey," and "The Same Sex Controversy: Defending and Clarifying the Bible's Message About Homosexuality." You really brought the big guns on this one. If TPJ is Glenn Beck, White is Rush Limbaugh. I mean what serious bible scholar DOESN'T check Star Wars or discard evolution as pseudo-science, oh that's right scholars
It's real easy to read a work like Ehrman's and believe him unquestionably, than to to do your own scholarly research on the subject.
You should take your own advise, start with finding scholars instead of personalities. Just so my utter scorn isn't just implied: As a contrasting point to Misquoting Jesus Jones and White are like high school math students writing in opposition to Einstein.
I can sum your whole post up as follows.
Ad Hominem.
I like how you conveniently pick 1 book of Dr. Whites and try and present him as a Limbaugh. here lets give the man proper credit shall we.
Giant block quote cut down by Mannahnin
I'm not a Dr. White apologist, but am just appalled by the way you just castigate a person as a "nonscholar" because he takes a different scholarly opinon than Ehrman. Please note how I didn't castigate or denounce Ehrman as a lunatic or idiot..just misguided.
Dr. Jones has written 32 books, but there isn't an easy way to copy paste his. Again you do the gentlemen a disservice much as you did Mr. white.
GG
I'd claim ad hominem too if the authors I used to refute an author published by the likes of Oxford and Harvard University Press(es) were solely published by evangelical publishers. The problem with ad hominem is it relys on a negative characteristic. Your pet "scholars" are a snow ball of negatives. You could bother to check through the Amazon search you did on TPJ of his 32 "books" there are several pamphlets, audio readings, and hard/soft cover alternatives for the books he HAS written. I'm sure his pamphlet "Why You Should Trust the Bible" is the penultimate expression of biblical research.
Your logical fallacy is: Argumentum Ad Verecundiam as in they don't have any to appeal to.
generalgrog wrote: Again..he might be a creationist therefore he is wrong about evrything else..classic Ad hominem fallacy.
No, it's a simple recognition of the fact that people who posses the almost unimaginable levels of stupidity and poor critical thinking skills required to reject evolution tend to be less than qualified in other fields. It's just like how you probably wouldn't trust a book written by the crazy guy standing on the corner yelling to himself about government mind control rays, except the crazy guy is a calm and reasonable scholar in comparison.
Tiina Brown wrote: Discussions were held, of course, and attempts to reason were also done, but what says that any of those had any effect on the bible?
Because we have numerous essays and papers produced by various people debating the merits of various books. The Book of Peter in particular has a well documented line of debate as to its inclusion. We still have the notes from various councils as well.
It took a thousand years? As far as i know, the official design of the Bible were defined in Nice (still unsure of the spelling), and anything after that were rather to enforce that form on others.
The First council of Nicea was primarily a debate over Arianism and the exact nature of Jesus' existence on Earth. It established the Nicean Creed (but even that wasn't official until the First Council of Constantinople). The Seven Ecumenical Councils had a lot of... red tape. There was a ton of debate and consensus was reached. We know 50 Bibles were commissioned by Constantinople sometime during the Councils but their form and what books they contained is unknown (likely the same ones we have today with a few extras possibly). The Ecumenical Councils didn't deal too much with canonization. They were about doctrinal issues between various Christian sects.
The Bible we have today seems to have been in circulation by the 2nd century and widely accepted by the early church by the 3rd. The Bible as we have it today was first 'canonized' in the 4th century as the collection already known and accepted by the church, but debate concerning canon continued well into the Crusades. The Council of Trent in 1543 was when the canon was finally fully articulated and set into stone and debate ceased (though actual debate seems to have ended by the 9th or the 10th century save a few individuals).
But still, if you are correct, that just show how long it took to get people to agree on that the bible should look in a certain way, rather that defining its form.
Well as I've already said, the Bible was not originally a collection of the only true books. It had the side effect of producing a easily available and copied collection that resulted in other texts being ignored in their favor, which led to belief by later Christians that only the books in the Bible were true.
There is no known originals of the Gospels, at least ...
We don't have originals for most of the Biblical books (I don't even think we have 'original' Pauline letters. We have copies that were in distribution, supposedly during Paul's life time which would make them second or third hand copies). The oldest known text types for the Canonic Gospels are from the Alexandrian text types and date either late 1st or early to mid second century to the early 3rd.
And if they wanted to add books representing christianity, then why did they choose 4 books that says pretty much the same?
Then you don't know much about the Canonic gospels. They were each chosen specifically because they paint different pictures of the man they're about. Roughly; John is the Spiritual Jesus, Luke is the Suffering Jesus, Mark is Jesus the Man, and Matthew is Jesus the Messiah. The Synoptic Gospels were likely chosen both because they agree with one another, and because they were among the most popular Gospel texts and the most familiar to Christians as well as among the oldest available. Ironic to this conversation there is debate that the authors of Mark may have had Gnostic influence in their writing.
Why not include at least one book with sayings, such as Thomas?
Well Thomas is the only sayings book we know to exist. It's possible that Thomas itself wasn't widely known. And though Q makes a lot of sense, there's oddly no reference to such a text by the church fathers (while we do find references to books like James, Peter, and even Judas among them). The document, if it exists, was likely forgotten. Humans do prefer narratives, so the narrative Gosples probably hedged any sayings collections out. But then, that's not a huge problem either, as we assume the gospels were compiled using sayings documents as Q proposes.
And by the way, while i'm at it, if you now are so certain that the Gospel of Judas is Gnostic, then what is it about it that says so?
Because it discusses a Jesus and a spirituality in which souls are in a state of imprisonment, which is directly in line with Gnostic thought concerning souls. The book posits that Judas killed Jesus to set his soul free, so that he could then lead other humans through the Aeons. It's pretty much the entire point of Judas that Judas Iscariot was given secret knowledge by Jesus not shared with anyone else and that it concerned a specific spiritual future for humanity. Add in its gnostic leanings and that how on earth would anyone know what Judas might have been told by Jesus when he was already long dead, and you can see how this book would get dismissed. The Gospel of Judas espouses secret knowledge. It's Gnosticism bread and butter.
And "excluded for a good/understandable reason" by those people at that time, do not mean it would not have made more sense today.
True but what pisses me off is the conspiracy bull crap and the lack of understanding as to just how democratic the process that created the Bible was. Anyone claiming that early church fathers through out any text simply because it disagreed with them, is being an idiot. We have plenty of documentation of debates and discourses held concerning various books, why church fathers supported or didn't support them, and how numerous theological issues were ultimately resolved. Many of them are debatable, but most of the doctrinal debates don't stem from texts themselves but rather interpretation. Peter was solely excluded not because it was believed untrue, but because church fathers feared it was too easily mistranslated into supporting Docetism.
I don't claim we know everything anymore than I think the church fathers knew everything. They likely picked the position that made the most sense and through the debates and councils that followed cut down the diverant interpretations into what we have now. I'm just sick of the hundreds of ignorant idiots out there hell bent on grinding their biased axes without know anything about what their railing against. The issue of canonized texts is one of the most annoying debates in modern discussion of the Bible. Of course Christian theologians opposed Gnostic texts. Why wouldn't they? Gnostic theology was completely at odds with Christian thought. Of all the books we now have copies of, at least 2/3 are Gnostic and yet not including them is somehow a grand conspiracy.
I'd claim ad hominem too if the authors I used to refute an author published by the likes of Oxford and Harvard University Press(es) were solely published by evangelical publishers.
Your logical fallacy is: Argumentum Ad Verecundiam as in they don't have any to appeal to.
Oh the Irony is painful....just painful.
By the way I didn't attempt to argue from authority..all I did was point out your logical fallacy that a PHD theologian's/Bible scholar's writings were equivalent to Glen Beck (a TV personality).
LordofHats wrote: [Well as I've already said, the Bible was not originally a collection of the only true books. It had the side effect of producing a easily available and copied collection that resulted in other texts being ignored in their favor, which led to belief by later Christians that only the books in the Bible were true.
Why not include at least one book with sayings, such as Thomas?
Well Thomas is the only sayings book we know to exist. It's possible that Thomas itself wasn't widely known. And though Q makes a lot of sense, there's oddly no reference to such a text by the church fathers (while we do find references to books like James, Peter, and even Judas among them). The document, if it exists, was likely forgotten. Humans do prefer narratives, so the narrative Gosples probably hedged any sayings collections out. But then, that's not a huge problem either, as we assume the gospels were compiled using sayings documents as Q proposes.
And by the way, while i'm at it, if you now are so certain that the Gospel of Judas is Gnostic, then what is it about it that says so?
Because it discusses a Jesus and a spirituality in which souls are in a state of imprisonment, which is directly in line with Gnostic thought concerning souls. The book posits that Judas killed Jesus to set his soul free, so that he could then lead other humans through the Aeons. It's pretty much the entire point of Judas that Judas Iscariot was given secret knowledge by Jesus not shared with anyone else and that it concerned a specific spiritual future for humanity. Add in its gnostic leanings and that how on earth would anyone know what Judas might have been told by Jesus when he was already long dead, and you can see how this book would get dismissed. The Gospel of Judas espouses secret knowledge. It's Gnosticism bread and butter.
And "excluded for a good/understandable reason" by those people at that time, do not mean it would not have made more sense today.
True but what pisses me off is the conspiracy bull crap and the lack of understanding as to just how democratic the process that created the Bible was. Anyone claiming that early church fathers through out any text simply because it disagreed with them, is being an idiot. We have plenty of documentation of debates and discourses held concerning various books, why church fathers supported or didn't support them, and how numerous theological issues were ultimately resolved. Many of them are debatable, but most of the doctrinal debates don't stem from texts themselves but rather interpretation. Peter was solely excluded not because it was believed untrue, but because church fathers feared it was too easily mistranslated into supporting Docetism.
I don't claim we know everything anymore than I think the church fathers knew everything. They likely picked the position that made the most sense and through the debates and councils that followed cut down the diverant interpretations into what we have now. I'm just sick of the hundreds of ignorant idiots out there hell bent on grinding their biased axes without know anything about what their railing against. The issue of canonized texts is one of the most annoying debates in modern discussion of the Bible. Of course Christian theologians opposed Gnostic texts. Why wouldn't they? Gnostic theology was completely at odds with Christian thought. Of all the books we now have copies of, at least 2/3 are Gnostic and yet not including them is somehow a grand conspiracy.
Hmm ...
You actually proved enough of my real point as well as yours, and even though i still have some questions, i can bow out of this discussion now.
It has been informative for me as well, and that is something that is valuable to me.
However, i must point out one thing:
I never said it was wrong to exclude gnostic texts from the bible, i just pointed out the risk that valid christian texts may have been excluded because the were thought of, or defined as, Gnostic.
But, i understand that you may have gotten that impression. It is, after all, a matter of interpretation, and perhaps the fact that english isn't my first laguage has resulted im me formulating myself ... not entirely correct for you to understand what i meant.
generalgrog wrote: By the way I didn't attempt to argue from authority..all I did was point out your logical fallacy that a PHD theologian's/Bible scholar's writings were equivalent to Glen Beck (a TV personality).
Except he's a "PHD" and "scholar" in name only. His "degree" is from an unaccredited mail-order diploma mill (IOW, its only value is as toilet paper), and the fact that he published a book disputing evolution proves that he's laughably unqualified as a scholar. Comparing him to Glen Beck is probably a bad comparison, but only because Glen Beck is actually successful and wealthy in his chosen field, while your "scholar" is just a fraud.
Ahtman wrote: I feel like the most important question is being avoided. If Jesus was married, would his wife have been hot?
Well from biblical sources I doubt it would be out of the question that Mary Magdalen was in fact Mrs. Christ and I think it's implied she was pretty hot.
On a more serious note, Jesus was a skilled tradesman and respected rabbi for most his life, he'd probably have his pick of the local hotties.
Any one have an issue with the very solid chance that Jesus had siblings?
LordofHats wrote: Which brings up another important question. How much does God pay in taxes?
Zero, of course. It's proven fact that the more wealth you have the more tax loopholes you find. Therefore, as the richest being in the universe God would find all the loopholes and pay zero taxes.
On a more serious note, Jesus was a skilled tradesman and respected rabbi for most his life, he'd probably have his pick of the local hotties.
Any one have an issue with the very solid chance that Jesus had siblings?
Matthew is pretty explicit in naming Jesus' brothers, I seem to recall at least one apocraphy Thomas is Jesus' twin which is...problematic.
I missed that in Matthew, and considering the whole sibling thing got my knuckles whacked just as hard as when I asked if Jesus was married back in Catholic school I considered them similar levels of blasphemous thought
AustonT wrote: Matthew is pretty explicit in naming Jesus' brothers
Um, no. Matthew is explicit in naming Jesus' familial lineage through his parents. Its ambiguous as to any potential siblings. There are versus that say he has brothers and sisters, but it was common practice among Jews that cousins and close relatives of the same age be referred to as brothers and sisters, so whether those are Mary's children is unclear (once the doctrine of perpetual virginity was established the answer for the church became no). The interpretation that they are merely close relatives makes sense though since Matthew was written to a Jewish audience (but its still ambiguous). But of course Mark also says he had brothers and sisters and Mark was written to a gentile audience. Another possibility is that they are Joseph's children through a previous marriage, but no evidence for that theory exists.
There isn't enough information available from the texts to definitively determine one way or the other. That said, the Doctrine of Perpetual Virginity was a later addition to church doctrine and it would seem, odd, for Mary to only have one child. It's impossible to determine the historical status of James, Jose, Simon, and Judas in relation to Jesus. It thus becomes a purely doctrinal problem (and a silly one at times).
I seem to recall at least one apocraphy Thomas is Jesus' twin which is...problematic.
None of the Canonic or Apocraphal books accepted by the Christianity today list any twins for Jesus. The only books that mention siblings at all are the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Thomas, and only Matthew names them.
See now that to me is completely unbelievable, fine I'll accept that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus, but that a married couple wouldn't get to begating? That's unrealistic on a "dinosaurs are a hoax" scale.
Yeah gonna say I fall on that side of the line. It seems horribly improbable that she'd never have any other children. Not dinosaurs are a hoax level, but some level of "oh reeaaally?" I don't think there are that many people circa 10-20 CE who only had 1 kid... Except Elizabeth but she was barren so she has an excuse.
There is no validity behind the Doctrine of Perpetual Virginity except as a means to enhance the reputation of Mary. Its a Roman Catholic revisionist pipe dream with little to no scriptural basis.
Matthew 13: 53-57
53 When Jesus had finished these parables, he moved on from there. 54 Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. “Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?” they asked. 55 “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? 56 Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” 57 And they took offense at him.
But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own town and in his own home.”
Mark 6: 2-3
2 When the Sabbath came, he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were amazed.
“Where did this man get these things?” they asked. “What’s this wisdom that has been given him? What are these remarkable miracles he is performing? 3 Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph,[a] Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.
The Gospel account states that Jesus has siblings, while it is indeed possible that this could be a colloquial term for relatives in general we have no justifiable reason to assume that is the case. Normally if a passage refers to brothers it means brothers, not cousins. The Bible mentions cousins only a limit number of occasions but it does make the distinction, especially of note is the reference in Leviticus 25, which highlights cousins in the Law, albeit the sole instance of doing so. As cousins are specifically identified in the Torah it is pretty much inconceivable that the Gospel account would mistake ignore the distinction between a brother or a cousin.
Leviticus 25: 48-49
48 they retain the right of redemption after they have sold themselves. One of their relatives may redeem them: 49 An uncle or a cousin or any blood relative in their clan may redeem them. Or if they prosper, they may redeem themselves.
Part of the problem with some Roman Catholic teaching is Marianism, the doctrine of elevating the Virgin Mary above her station in scripture. As the scriptures say generations will call her blessed, but they should not call her divine. The Bible strictly forgives worship of any being but God, so it was never intended for the Virgin Mary to be an object of prayer, veneration yes, but not a subject of petition. In parts of south America particularly an extreme version of Marianism has risen which called for the Virgin Mary to be labeled as co-salvator with Christ. Fortunately and to his credit Pope John Paul II blocked this.
Nevertheless many unscriptural parts of Marianism linger in orthodox Catholicism including the doctrine of Perpetual Virginity, which is frankly not only unscriptural but counter productive. The Biblical doctrine of Virgin Birth highlights the purity of Jesus, the non Biblical doctrine of Perpetual Virginity highlights the purity of Mary alone.
The only Biblical account that has any support for Perpetual Virginity is the account that Jesus on the cross passed care of his mother on to the disciple John. It would have made more sense to pass responsibility onto one of Mary's other sons, if they existed. However that is very thin. It still would make no indication that Mary lived her whole life free of sexual relations, or may have indicated that John was chosen because John was there and the brothers were not, or that John had better material means with which to look after her. John was also known for his longevity, in fact this was prophesied, it may even be thev purpose for which he was given a long life.
Married Jesus?
I don't have a problem with this frankly. Jesus had many female followers, some of whom were close to him. The Gospel account gives them little attention, but does acknowledge they were there. It is telling that Jesus first appeared to some of his female followers before the disciples.
I think in balance that Jesus probably was unmarried but I cannot defend that beyond saying that it is a hunch. Jesus was mission orientated, he came to Earth for a purpose, to marry is in some regards counter productive. Saying that untyil the age of thirty Jesus lived a relatively normal life and probably practiced his foster fathers business. An unmarried man at that age would be odd especially as Jesus was referred to as a rabbi and rabbis have always been a married post by tradition. on the other hand rabbis are not married by Law, only tradition and Jesus practiced an open contempt for the traditions that lay outside the Law.
It doesnt matter either way really, but if it makes a point for feminist theologians then I have to ask: Are the scriptures being interpreted to match a desired doctrine, or is this open revelation? Only the latter is desirable.
Merovingian Dynasty.
Part of the reason to assume Jesus married is that as a married man he probably would have had children. Again I do not believe this as provision for the Virgin Mary was made at the cross, however no provision was made for any siblings. Jesus if he was to leave behind a family would not have omitted this.
It is telling that no record of Jesus' family survives, which is all for the better as any proven blood relative of Jesus would have super-royalty status, particularly in the middle ages. This is not to say that such relatives don't exist, if Mary had other children with Joseph, which is likely from the Gospel account then they are half-blood relations to Jesus, and also descendants of Mary and ultimately King David.
I think it likely that the early church and indeed God may not have wanted a dynastic royalty within Christianity. Some like to believe this dynasty exists and some think it can even be traced, hence the Merovingian dynasty. This is in my opinion conspiracy nonsense on the same level as UFO conspiracies and secret messages in old paintings. Some even like to postulate if they are connected. I mention this for completeness, not because it has any place in rational theology.
There's also the more contemporary problem that if the Saint Claire are the actual descendants of the Christ, then his latest inheritor is a porn star.
That might resolve some issue with church attendance.
Kovnik Obama wrote: There's also the more contemporary problem that if the Saint Laure are the actual descendants of the Christ, then his latest inheritor is a porn star.
That might resolve some issue with church attendance.
Thats fairly pointless frankly. unless the 'dynasty' kept to having single children the genes would eventually spread, especially as there isnt a single key 'official' family. Two millenia later and Mary's/ Jesus's (you choose) genetic heritage is probably very widespread indeed. So if a descendant is a porn star, so what. Plenty more who arent.
Also the geneology of Jesus in Mathew 1:5 includes the prostitute Rahab, so nothing new.
Kovnik Obama wrote: There's also the more contemporary problem that if the Saint Claire are the actual descendants of the Christ, then his latest inheritor is a porn star.
That might resolve some issue with church attendance.
Thats fairly pointless frankly. unless the 'dynasty' kept to having single children the genes would eventually spread, especially as there isnt a single key 'official' family. Two millenia later and Mary's/ Jesus's (you choose) genetic heritage is probably very widespread indeed.
Yes, well that argument can be used against any type of dynastic system relying on some type of quality of character in the leaders. Even with 5-10 generations the genetic baggage becomes quite different.
The Gospel account states that Jesus has siblings, while it is indeed possible that this could be a colloquial term for relatives in general we have no justifiable reason to assume that is the case. Normally if a passage refers to brothers it means brothers, not cousins. The Bible mentions cousins only a limit number of occasions but it does make the distinction, especially of note is the reference in Leviticus 25, which highlights cousins in the Law, albeit the sole instance of doing so. As cousins are specifically identified in the Torah it is pretty much inconceivable that the Gospel account would mistake ignore the distinction between a brother or a cousin.
I think that's a very bad logical assumption. We have non-Biblical texts from Palestine that refer to close relatives as brother and sister, so we know it happened. The term cousin is almost never used in the Bible for this exact reason. And it wasn't just a Jewish thing. They likely picked that tradition up from the Persians.
You also assume authorship with united styles and motivation which is just plain wrong. Leviticus was written centuries prior to the Gospels by different authors in a different time.
One of the biggest things to note about Jesus' supposed brothers is that one is named Jose. This is a different way of rendering the name Joseph in Greek. Jesus, is a Hellenistic rendering of Joseph. It seems odd that were Mary to have other children she'd give two of her sons the same name. Joseph was by far the most common name among Jews in this time period (think John Smith levels of common). Two siblings with the same name is odd, but two close relatives probably likely.
The most probable answer may be that some of the brothers listed were close relatives, and some siblings either by Joseph or Mary. It's not a simple question to answer (fortunately I don't really think it's an important question that needs answering beyond the interests of raw academics).
The only Biblical account that has any support for Perpetual Virginity is the account that Jesus on the cross passed care of his mother on to the disciple John. It would have made more sense to pass responsibility onto one of Mary's other sons, if they existed.
The key origin for the doctrine is the Book of James (and partially the Book of Peter). Despite being rejected for canonization we can trace the doctrine's origins to these texts.
I think that more than likely those listed in Matthew are a mix of both close relatives and Joseph's children either from Mary or another marriage. It's unlikely Mary was his only wife. Since Joseph disappears absolutely from the Bible it may be possible he died (it's most likely he died, as he would culturally take charge of his son's body on his death, which he didn't do) and his sons were caring for his other wives, leaving Jesus to send his mother to the care of a close friend. EDIT: Of course there's also the theory that there is no Joseph. The oldest of the Gospels is Mark and Joseph isn't in it. Early Christians believed Jesus would return very soon, so the question of whether they should marry and have children was one they struggled with. It's possible Joseph's character was written into texts to address this question and to encourage early Christians to go about their business as usual. But Mark still mentions brothers and sisters.
I think that's a very bad logical assumption. We have non-Biblical texts from Palestine that refer to close relatives as brother and sister, so we know it happened. The term cousin is almost never used in the Bible for this exact reason. And it wasn't just a Jewish thing. They likely picked that tradition up from the Persians.
Its also not particularly far fetched given that words like "brother" and "uncle" are often used today to refer to people with whom you have a close, thought not necessarily genetic, relationship. We're not so free wheeling as was common in the time of Jesus, or so focused on familial ties, but the appellation is still used in a distorted manner. For example, I've got a very old friend who I've introduced as my brother for years. I've known him since I was 6, and while we're not particularly good friends anymore he still ends up at every family holiday meal to this day.
generalgrog wrote: By the way I didn't attempt to argue from authority..all I did was point out your logical fallacy that a PHD theologian's/Bible scholar's writings were equivalent to Glen Beck (a TV personality).
Except he's a "PHD" and "scholar" in name only. His "degree" is from an unaccredited mail-order diploma mill (IOW, its only value is as toilet paper), and the fact that he published a book disputing evolution proves that he's laughably unqualified as a scholar. Comparing him to Glen Beck is probably a bad comparison, but only because Glen Beck is actually successful and wealthy in his chosen field, while your "scholar" is just a fraud.
Interesting..
Dr. James Whites diploma Mills.
B.A. Bible (Major in Biology, minor in Greek), Grand Canyon College, 1985.
M.A. Theology, Fuller Theological Seminary, 1989
Th.M. Apologetics, Faraston Seminary, 1995
Th.D., Apologetics, Columbia Evangelical Seminary, 1998
D.Min, Apologetics, Columbia Evangelical Seminary, 2002
Timothy Jones' diploma mills
B.A., Manhattan Christian College;
M.Div., Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary;
Ph.D., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
Anyway you are starting to get emotional in your responses, while I see your point that Columbia Evangelical Seminary is unaccredited and therefore not as prestigious as Princeton, it still doesn't "auto fraud" someone. James white was a consultant for the New American Standard Bible update in 1995 The NASB is a well respected translation. And he stood toe to toe with Ehrman in the Misquting Jesus debate. Which I own by the way..it's well worth the watch if your in to this stuff.
I'm not going to continue on this derail, as I think we have both made our points and it's kind of off the topic.
The Gospel account states that Jesus has siblings, while it is indeed possible that this could be a colloquial term for relatives in general we have no justifiable reason to assume that is the case. Normally if a passage refers to brothers it means brothers, not cousins. The Bible mentions cousins only a limit number of occasions but it does make the distinction, especially of note is the reference in Leviticus 25, which highlights cousins in the Law, albeit the sole instance of doing so. As cousins are specifically identified in the Torah it is pretty much inconceivable that the Gospel account would mistake ignore the distinction between a brother or a cousin.
I think that's a very bad logical assumption. We have non-Biblical texts from Palestine that refer to close relatives as brother and sister, so we know it happened. The term cousin is almost never used in the Bible for this exact reason. And it wasn't just a Jewish thing. They likely picked that tradition up from the Persians.
You also assume authorship with united styles and motivation which is just plain wrong. Leviticus was written centuries prior to the Gospels by different authors in a different time.
One of the biggest things to note about Jesus' supposed brothers is that one is named Jose. This is a different way of rendering the name Joseph in Greek. Jesus, is a Hellenistic rendering of Joseph. It seems odd that were Mary to have other children she'd give two of her sons the same name. Joseph was by far the most common name among Jews in this time period (think John Smith levels of common). Two siblings with the same name is odd, but two close relatives probably likely.
The most probable answer may be that some of the brothers listed were close relatives, and some siblings either by Joseph or Mary. It's not a simple question to answer (fortunately I don't really think it's an important question that needs answering beyond the interests of raw academics).
I cannot say the brothers of Jesus were not brothers in a coloquial sense, but there is no defense for a doctrine that claims that they are. its Marian wishful thinking.
Besides it doesnt take into account this:
Matthew 1:24-25
24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
So according to the Book of Matthew Joseph had Mary afterwards. if so she wasn't a virgin anymore and as barrenness is considered a curse and sinful I have no reason not to believe the union was fruitful. Frankly I think they were brothers, especially as they thought they had special access to Jesus as brothers, cousins don't necessarily have priority over close friends. The inidcation is that Jesus knew his three inner disciples and possibly other from before his ministry.
The key origin for the doctrine is the Book of James (and partially the Book of Peter). Despite being rejected for canonization we can trace the doctrine's origins to these texts.
I think that more than likely those listed in Matthew are a mix of both close relatives and Joseph's children either from Mary or another marriage. It's unlikely Mary was his only wife. Since Joseph disappears absolutely from the Bible it may be possible he died (it's most likely he died, as he would culturally take charge of his son's body on his death, which he didn't do) and his sons were caring for his other wives, leaving Jesus to send his mother to the care of a close friend. EDIT: Of course there's also the theory that there is no Joseph. The oldest of the Gospels is Mark and Joseph isn't in it. Early Christians believed Jesus would return very soon, so the question of whether they should marry and have children was one they struggled with. It's possible Joseph's character was written into texts to address this question and to encourage early Christians to go about their business as usual. But Mark still mentions brothers and sisters.
Sorry, but I can't buy that, its very likely Mary was Josephs only wife, polygamy was sinful and Joseph was a righteous man.. Yes several Old Testament characters practiced polygamy, such as Solomon, always with negative results. By this time AFAIK it was not usual in Jewish society to practice polygamy.
According to tradition Joseph died before Jesus began his ministry. Jesus was head of his household when he began his work and a man in his own prime. Part of the reason he started his ministry at 30 the traditional entry age for true adulthood in Jewish society. There was a Joseph in that Mary was engaged to be married to, he lasted long enough to return to Galilee so Jesus became 'the carpenters son'. How long he lived and when he died, we dont know.
Orlanth wrote: Matthew 1:24-25
24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
Or, more likely, Mary and Joseph were having lots of hot premarital sex but in ways that can't produce kids, Mary cheated on him with some other guy and got pregnant, and said "god did it" to get herself out of trouble. It certainly makes a lot more sense than any other explanation.
generalgrog wrote: Anyway you are starting to get emotional in your responses, while I see your point that Columbia Evangelical Seminary is unaccredited and therefore not as prestigious as Princeton, it still doesn't "auto fraud" someone.
Yes it does. "Unaccredited" doesn't mean "less prestigious", it means that the standards for getting a degree are so low that they can't convince any accrediting organization to recognize their program as legitimate. And it's automatically fraud if you claim a "degree" from an unaccredited "school"* in your author summary just like it was a real degree. What you actually have is a rather expensive piece of toilet paper, not a degree, and you're counting on people not knowing that it's from an unaccredited "school" when you claim to be a "PhD bible scholar". Just like if I claimed to be a "PhD bible scholar" using my own degree** it would be fraud.
Oh, and before you claim that this is unfair to the poor Christians, I'll just point out that there are plenty of accredited religious schools offering degrees in religious subjects. The only thing preventing a "scholar" from getting a real degree from one of these schools is the fact that they don't want to invest the effort required.
*While there might be some unaccredited programs which offer some kind of education most of them are little more than mail-order diploma sellers or "schools" created for the sole purpose of awarding "degrees" to members of their religion to give them credentials to claim in public debates.
**Which I just awarded myself from Peregrine University. We're now offering degrees starting at $19.95 with no classes required!
Orlanth wrote: Matthew 1:24-25
24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
Or, more likely, Mary and Joseph were having lots of hot premarital sex but in ways that can't produce kids, Mary cheated on him with some other guy and got pregnant, and said "god did it" to get herself out of trouble. It certainly makes a lot more sense than any other explanation.
This reads like the script for Innocence of Muslims.
Oh, and before you claim that this is unfair to the poor Christians, I'll just point out that there are plenty of accredited religious schools offering degrees in religious subjects. The only thing preventing a "scholar" from getting a real degree from one of these schools is the fact that they don't want to invest the effort required.
Orlanth wrote: This reads like the script for Innocence of Muslims.
Or a porn film. Really, I think the Bible has much more potential as the script for a porn film than as a serious work of literature.
Please try to make your criticisms more polite. A fair amount of your comments in this thread have come pretty close to trolling. I'd appreciate it if you made an effort to be less inflammatory.
The Gospel of James specifically states that Mary remained a virgin and works of Irasmus, Jerome, and Epiphainus (among others) attest to their belief in the perpetual virginity and they cite the now non-canonic Gospel of James. Peter also contains an implication to the perpetual virginity a Irasmus and Jerome note this. As you've pointed out, none of the canonic books support the doctrine, so it had to come from somewhere else obviously
LordofHats wrote: Sorry, but I can't buy that, its very likely Mary was Josephs only wife, polygamy was sinful and Joseph was a righteous man.. Yes several Old Testament characters practiced polygamy, such as Solomon, always with negative results. By this time AFAIK it was not usual in Jewish society to practice polygamy.
Jewish law allowed for Polygamy and Roman law despite not supporting polygamy allowed it within the region (you're right in that it wasn't common) as attested to by the works of Josephus on marriage at the time. But I meant and left out that both polygamy and previous marriages are possibilities. The Old Testament and Jewish Law do not present polygamy as sinful. That is a later Christian doctrine developed to account for different cultural needs. Augustine wrote extensively on this issue as it was an ongoing debate in the early church into the 3rd century (1st Corinthians be damned?).
Herod had multiple wives because as a Roman in Palestine the law allowed it, as did some Jewish figures of the time. Joseph as a Carpenter wouldn't have been blindingly rich, but its likely he made enough money to support 1 or 2 wives (he may have also had a previous marriage as the Bible doesn't list his age). Especially at this time, skilled artisans were short throughout the Roman Empire. A carpenter who was decently good, could make a lot of money. The Gospel of James supports this view (which of course it also supports the perpetual virginity).
EDIT: Eastern Orthodoxy supports a doctrine that Joseph had a previous marriage to a woman named Salome. I don't know what the basis for this belief is.
The Gospel of James specifically states that Mary remained a virgin and works of Irasmus, Jerome, and Epiphainus (among others) attest to their belief in the perpetual virginity and they cite the now non-canonic Gospel of James. Peter also contains an implication to the perpetual virginity a Irasmus and Jerome note this. As you've pointed out, none of the canonic books support the doctrine, so it had to come from somewhere else obviously
And this evidence 'overrules' Matthew 1:5 ?
I cannot see how the Catholic church draws from works considered non-canonical by its own doctrine in favour of a direct contradictory verse from established canon.
Jewish law allowed for Polygamy and Roman law despite not supporting polygamy allowed it within the region (you're right in that it wasn't common) as attested to by the works of Josephus on marriage at the time. But I meant and left out that both polygamy and previous marriages are possibilities. The Old Testament and Jewish Law do not present polygamy as sinful. That is a later Christian doctrine developed to account for different cultural needs. Augustine wrote extensively on this issue as it was an ongoing debate in the early church into the 3rd century (1st Corinthians be damned?).
Polygamy is a rare case of the category of not recommended rather than the category of offense to the Lord.
Herod had multiple wives because as a Roman in Palestine the law allowed it, as did some Jewish figures of the time. Joseph as a Carpenter wouldn't have been blindingly rich, but its likely he made enough money to support 1 or 2 wives (he may have also had a previous marriage as the Bible doesn't list his age). Especially at this time, skilled artisans were short throughout the Roman Empire. A carpenter who was decently good, could make a lot of money. The Gospel of James supports this view (which of course it also supports the perpetual virginity).
None of the Herods are a good example of anything except "do as I say not as I do".
We have no evidence of a second wife, only conjecture, and abjured scripture considered non canonical before the Marian doctrine came to prominence. I cannot say there was no second wife, we can say there isn't anything to pin a theology on, if, and it is if, there was a second wife she is of no more validity to the Biblical account than anyone else living at the time.
EDIT: Eastern Orthodoxy supports a doctrine that Joseph had a previous marriage to a woman named Salome. I don't know what the basis for this belief is.
Some of the old stories are contemporary, especially Eastern Orthodox and Coptic stories. That doesn't mean authentic, also with healthcare being what it was Joseph could have had a first wife, and been widowed.
At best there are maybes, and they have to directly contradict established canon to do so. Sorry, I don't buy this at all. Nice discussion though.
Orlanth wrote: And this evidence 'overrules' Matthew 1:5 ?
I cannot see how the Catholic church draws from works considered non-canonical by its own doctrine in favour of a direct contradictory verse from established canon.
Its the darndest thing isn't it? Almost like the formulation of church doctrine was a long process with numerous view points. Remember. The Canon was not final until 1563 with the conclusion of the Council of Trent. In the first few centuries of the church much of this was up in the air for debate.
Polygamy is a rare case of the category of not recommended rather than the category of offense to the Lord.
That is a Christian view, not a Jewish one of the time period. That's an accurate summary what Augustine had to say about polygamy in the OT in the 4th century, but cut out the NT and nothing in the OT supports a view that polygamy was wrong.
We have no evidence of a second wife, only conjecture, and abjured scripture considered non canonical before the Marian doctrine came to prominence.
Oh? What canon? We're talking the 4th and 5th century. No canon existed until 1563, and the time the Marian doctrines formed was in the middle of the height of the canon debates. The early fathers didn't just read the books of the bible and believe only those books were authoritative. They read numerous now non-canonical texts and didn't necessarily believe them untrue. Listing Jesus' brothers as brothers isn't inherently claiming they're his siblings anymore than calling John the disciple he loved makes Jesus gay. Words do not always mean exactly what they say, especially in religious texts.
I do agree about the second wife though to the extent that we can never really know. I'm unaware of any text other than James that mentions any other wives and that one specifically says it was a previous marriage. But James also isn't the most reliable of texts on the subject because the author obviously supported perpetual virginity.
At best there are maybes, and they have to directly contradict established canon to do so. Sorry, I don't buy this at all. Nice discussion though.
I actually find it kind of odd that such doctrines get so much attention in the early church. In retreospec they seem kind of, trivial. Even the same substance/similar substance of Jesus Christ debate seems kind of silly to me today cause I'm not really sure why it matters to much. I mean sure if you want to understand the exact nature of Jesus Christ in his relationship to god the father it matters, but understanding that isn't a requirement for salvation. The Early church spent a lot of time dealing with questions it really didn't necessarily have to.
LordofHats wrote: Even the same substance/similar substance of Jesus Christ debate seems kind of silly to me today cause I'm not really sure why it matters to much. I mean sure if you want to understand the exact nature of Jesus Christ in his relationship to god the father it matters, but understanding that isn't a requirement for salvation. The Early church spent a lot of time dealing with questions it really didn't necessarily have to.
But why does any of it matter? It's like saying arguing over the color of Superman's cape in issue #30945 is a trivial detail, but arguing over the shape of the logo in issue #34650 is a deep philosophical debate. So how is it a trivial detail to argue over whether Jesus had a brother or whatever the whole "same substance/similar substance" debate is, but not a trivial detail to argue about other parts of the Bible and/or the history of how it was written? In the end it's all still just as fictional and I really don't see any reason to favor one debate over another besides personal aesthetic preference for what to argue about.
Still here with that silly analogy are you? Try reading instead of pandering and maybe you'd learn something because I answer that question in my own post. Whether Jesus had brothers, or whether Mary was always a virgin, has no bearing on salvation. They're side questions that might be interesting in a purely theological sense, but in retrospect hold no practical value to the typical believer, i.e. knowing the correct answer to those questions bears no consequences on human salvation. Hence they're trivial when compared to questions like work based or faith based salvation.
Jihadin wrote: Is God republican, democrat, or independent?
A forum moderator of course
Well we veered perilously close to the precipice but appeared to have steered back to safety.
Whilst the odd joke or light hearted comment is fine and dandy, please bear in mind that on topics like this other posters are quite likely to have differing values and opinions and what to you is meant as a bit of fun might wind up being needlessly offensive to others, just take a moment a'fore posting. keeps the forum, nay the world itself p'raps, a cheerier place.
LordofHats wrote: Whether Jesus had brothers, or whether Mary was always a virgin, has no bearing on salvation.
Sure it does. Let's set aside all the other overwhelming reasons to believe that the Bible is entirely a work of fiction and consider the brother issue. How many people consider the Bible and/or their church doctrine to be the absolute work of god? Lots of them. So now we consider an argument that church doctrine and/or the Bible could be wrong. If it's true, it completely destroys the "infallible" word of god argument that their faith depends on and casts serious doubt on everything else the Bible says.
Or consider the entire catholic church, with that pesky little problem in their doctrine where the church is infallible and speaking through god. If they're wrong about Mary being a virgin it absolutely disproves their claim to be the infallible voice of god on earth, and that's hardly a trivial detail. And this isn't some little 10-person ultra-fundamentalist church we're talking about either.
They're side questions that might be interesting in a purely theological sense, but in retrospect hold no practical value to the typical believer, i.e. knowing the correct answer to those questions bears no consequences on human salvation. Hence they're trivial when compared to questions like work based or faith based salvation.
Except for the tiny little detail that god doesn't exist and salvation is just a comforting myth. The exact method of salvation is just another detail in a fictional work, possibly of interest to devoted fans of that work but not really a serious philosophical debate. Nothing in the real world depends on it, and there's no compelling reason to argue about it one way or another unless you just happen to like discussing that aspect of a work of literature. And once you're considering some details like that, what reason is there to exclude other arguments from the field of "legitimate" discussion about that work?
(And yes, I know that individual people may feel strongly about some issues but not others, my point is that it's just personal aesthetic preference and there's no good reason to say that one issue is more important than others. Just like we don't say one literary critic (in an academic context) is bad for focusing on small details of a work while another is good because they prefer to discuss broad themes.)
LordofHats wrote: Still grinding axes and missing the subtlety of nuance I see. Stay classy.
What nuance is there? All I see is your personal aesthetic preference for spending your free time considering certain questions and not others, and a lot of debate over who gets to decide the "official" version of a bunch of events where there's no reason to believe they ever happened at all.
Edit: I forgot the funny part where someone claimed that a "degree" from a mail-order diploma mill qualifies you as a "scholar". That was actually pretty good.
Orlanth wrote: And this evidence 'overrules' Matthew 1:5 ?
I cannot see how the Catholic church draws from works considered non-canonical by its own doctrine in favour of a direct contradictory verse from established canon.
Its the darndest thing isn't it? Almost like the formulation of church doctrine was a long process with numerous view points. Remember. The Canon was not final until 1563 with the conclusion of the Council of Trent. In the first few centuries of the church much of this was up in the air for debate.
The canon was established in 367 and remained unchanged from that point, though it took a little while longer for the Eastern Orthodox to accept the Book of Revelations. The Council of Trent was just a rubber stamp needed to authorise a Catholic bible in response to Lutheran disputes, it was a name change and didn't affect actual canon.
The first council of Nicaea also cemented most of the canon we had to day, most of the apocryphal texts were eliminated before the 3rd century.
The only notable differences between the churches regards the inclusion of which Old Testament books. the formal Catholic Apocrypha neatly includes those tests not included in the standard Protestant Bible in seperation.
I actually find it kind of odd that such doctrines get so much attention in the early church. In retreospec they seem kind of, trivial. Even the same substance/similar substance of Jesus Christ debate seems kind of silly to me today cause I'm not really sure why it matters to much. I mean sure if you want to understand the exact nature of Jesus Christ in his relationship to god the father it matters, but understanding that isn't a requirement for salvation. The Early church spent a lot of time dealing with questions it really didn't necessarily have to.
Both Marys are important as they show women in positions of importance and reverance in the church, and there are claims they were subject to revisionism by those who wanted to limit authority of women.
Priscilla is largely ignored, yet her church leadership role in the book of Acts is plainly described.
Orlanth wrote: The canon was established in 367 and remained unchanged from that point,
I don't consider the announcement of a single Bishop authoritative as to the canon, especially not when his reason was that "these are the ones everyone reads so these are the ones we'll use" and we have evidence of continuing debate as to canon going on after his announcement. In 380, Gregory produced a canon that didn't include Revelation. In 394, Amphilochius of Iconium wrote about debate over a canon that didn't include 1st or 2nd Peter, Jude, or Revelation. Cassiodorus rejected the same books in a canon list in the 6th century. There are canon lists into the 8th century that omit Revelation. Jude, 1, 2, 3 John, Revelation, James, and 1 and 3 Peter were being debated in the seventh century. The Maccabees and Tobit were being debated in the eighth.
Also don't know where you heard that about Nicaea. Only a single source attests to any canon being debated by the first council and it only attests to Judith's acceptance.
Both Marys are important as they show women in positions of importance and reverance in the church, and there are claims they were subject to revisionism by those who wanted to limit authority of women.
The Mary's are more important than Priscilla or Junia? Not sure I'd agree that they really had any positions of importance. Women followed Rabbis. It's not like Jesus was rocking the boat by hanging out with women (He rocked it because he accepted a prostitute as a disciple).
I've honestly not convinced of the issues with Pauline Epistles and Women. I definitely agree that Timothy was not written by Paul, but Corinthians? There's no evidence that it was altered, just a baseless assumption based on another baseless assumption that Paul was more approving of women than is traditionally believed. It centers around Paul calling men and women equal in the eyes of god but then saying that women can't be ordained. If I had a dime for every instance in history where 'equal' meant something other than the modern conception of equality, I'd be up at least $3.
AustonT wrote: Matthew is pretty explicit in naming Jesus' brothers
Um, no. Matthew is explicit in naming Jesus' familial lineage through his parents. Its ambiguous as to any potential siblings. There are versus that say he has brothers and sisters, but it was common practice among Jews that cousins and close relatives of the same age be referred to as brothers and sisters, so whether those are Mary's children is unclear (once the doctrine of perpetual virginity was established the answer for the church became no). The interpretation that they are merely close relatives makes sense though since Matthew was written to a Jewish audience (but its still ambiguous). But of course Mark also says he had brothers and sisters and Mark was written to a gentile audience. Another possibility is that they are Joseph's children through a previous marriage, but no evidence for that theory exists.
There isn't enough information available from the texts to definitively determine one way or the other. That said, the Doctrine of Perpetual Virginity was a later addition to church doctrine and it would seem, odd, for Mary to only have one child. It's impossible to determine the historical status of James, Jose, Simon, and Judas in relation to Jesus. It thus becomes a purely doctrinal problem (and a silly one at times).
I know that someone else already posted this but:
Matthew 13:55(NIV)Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? I don't know about you but generally when I talk about someone's family I don't mention his/her parents by name and then randomly name their cousins without their own parents. By logical inference this is a description of Jesus' nuclear family. Linguistically and culturally Jews of this time period were Hellenistic, and Greeks have a delineation between cousins and brothers that Jews did not. After more than three centuries of Hellenization its ridiculous to say the disciples couldn't differentiate between close family and cousins of varying degrees, and the Greek words for each.
I seem to recall at least one apocraphy Thomas is Jesus' twin which is...problematic.
None of the Canonic or Apocraphal books accepted by the Christianity today list any twins for Jesus.
Yeah, that must be why it's apocryphal. It's the Acts of Thomas where Jesus is portrayed not just as Thomas' twin but his identical twin. Elaine Pagels has postulated that the doubling of the Hebrew and Greek words for twin in the introduction to the Gospel of Thomas implies that he is the twin of Jesus.
Peregrine wrote:
Except for the tiny little detail that god doesn't exist and salvation is just a comforting myth.
If you believe this why click on a thread that is obviously about religion?
Peregrine wrote:
Except for the tiny little detail that god doesn't exist and salvation is just a comforting myth.
If you believe this why click on a thread that is obviously about religion?
Because I like asking questions and seeing religious people fail to answer them? Because I think it's amusing that disagreement over canon policy in one fictional work is a deep philosophical debate, while disagreement in other fictional works is written off as obsessive geeks arguing about stupid trivia?
AustonT wrote: After more than three centuries of Hellenization its ridiculous to say the disciples couldn't differentiate between close family and cousins of varying degrees, and the Greek words for each.
Gee and here I thought the Jews were still writing in Hebrew and Aramaic and still capable of speaking their own language. Hellenization isn't everyone became Greek. It's everyone became more Greekish. Mark and Matthew were probably not written by any of Jesus' disciples but pulled together from early sources (one of Matthew's is MarK). You can see the effect of Hellenization on the Jews in Daniel and its not that great. The Jews heavily rejected Hellenization in the 2nd and 1st century BCE. Lots of sources outside of Palestine from Babylon to Persia and Egypt Greece and Roman attest to the cultural stubbornness of the ancient Jews. It's ridiculous to assume that because a people lived under Greek rule that they accepted every single aspect of Greek Culture while maintaining none of their own, especially not under Hellenization which was as much other cultures mixing in with Greek as it was Greek spreading through the ancient world.
Yeah, that must be why it's apocryphal. It's the Acts of Thomas where Jesus is portrayed not just as Thomas' twin but his identical twin. Elaine Pagels has postulated that the doubling of the Hebrew and Greek words for twin in the introduction to the Gospel of Thomas implies that he is the twin of Jesus.
Its not even aprocryphal for Christians, hence why I said Christian text. Acts of Thomas as we have it now is a Gnostic text. Much like Judas it deals with a doctrine of secret knowledge and freeing the soul from Captivity. It's also horribly unlikely we have the original version. We've found fragments of the text with sections not in the complete versions we have. At some point in time Acts of Thomas underwent heavy editing. Textual criticism of the text also reveals as many as five different authors. The two theories are that Acts of Thomas was originally a Syriac Christian text that was Gnosticized in the 4th century, or that it was a Gnostic text that underwent redactions at some point.
The book you are looking for is called Thomas the Contender (ignore Elena Pagels on this, her book was stupidly dumb in handling the twin thing). A partially complete gnostic text from the Nag Hammadi library which contains a line where Jesus identifies Thomas as his twin. But why should we accept the words of a single book that claims one of Jesus' apostles was also his twin brother when no other book in Christian or Gnosticism identifies Jesus as having a twin, let alone that it was Thomas? Let alone a text likely written sometime in the 4th century. Some gnostics likely saw Thomas was not only called a twin but that his name also means twin and ran with it as one of their super secrets, possibly diluting the only Christian text chronicling the eastern ministry and destroying its original version.
If you believe this why click on a thread that is obviously about religion?
Because then he'd never get to cry fantasy and no one would know how much he doesn't believe?
Orlanth wrote: The canon was established in 367 and remained unchanged from that point,
I don't consider the announcement of a single Bishop authoritative as to the canon, especially not when his reason was that "these are the ones everyone reads so these are the ones we'll use" and we have evidence of continuing debate as to canon going on after his announcement. In 380, Gregory produced a canon that didn't include Revelation. In 394, Amphilochius of Iconium wrote about debate over a canon that didn't include 1st or 2nd Peter, Jude, or Revelation. Cassiodorus rejected the same books in a canon list in the 6th century. There are canon lists into the 8th century that omit Revelation. Jude, 1, 2, 3 John, Revelation, James, and 1 and 3 Peter were being debated in the seventh century. The Maccabees and Tobit were being debated in the eighth.
The single bishop' Athanasius set the 27 books of the New Testament, cince that time the New testament has not changed, this was agreed with by the church of the time, by Augustine and the Councils of Carthage.
The Council of Trent did nothing to change this. Until the Council of Trent canonicity of the 27 includes scriptures was up for debate, but not actual change. What the council did was remove the debate, it didn't add or subtract any. The New Testament of 367 was the New Testament of today in the Catholic church, and most others.
Any attempt to use the bible pre-Council of Trent to back up the doctrine of using non canonical scriptures is futile. ALL the works used to back up 'perpetual virginity' have been rejected at least from 367, indeed the New Testament has been mostly stablilised since about c200. However perpetual virginity is absolutely refuted in Matthew 1:5, you can choose to argue for perpetual virginity but only by first acknowledging that it is directly contrary to Scripture.
It wouldn't be the sole Catholic teaching that runs completely contrary to Biblical teaching. Praying to saints is also forbidden etc. I can say you are wrong on a point of scripture, but thats as far as I take it. Wars have been fought over gak like this, I much prefer to look at another denomination that has doctrines that misread a verse or two as fellow brothers in Christ instead of rivals. So long as the doctrine salvation by belief and profession of Jesus death for sin and resurrection is preached I dont care as much about anything else.
I've honestly not convinced of the issues with Pauline Epistles and Women. I definitely agree that Timothy was not written by Paul, but Corinthians? There's no evidence that it was altered, just a baseless assumption based on another baseless assumption that Paul was more approving of women than is traditionally believed. It centers around Paul calling men and women equal in the eyes of god but then saying that women can't be ordained. If I had a dime for every instance in history where 'equal' meant something other than the modern conception of equality, I'd be up at least $3.
A lot of the hangups over Paul would go away if it was understood that the epistles were letters to individual churches. Paul was happy to visit Priscilla and Aquillas joint ministry without remving Priscilla. Corinth was a strange place, it was the wordlwide headquarters of the cult of Aphrodite Pornae, which explains itself in its title. Priestesses of Aphrodite shaved their heads, and that explains the charge for Christian women in Corinth to grow their hair. Greeks educated themselves to a very high degree by for the times but only the menfolk were educated, this explains the teaching restrictions and silencing questions by women. No wonder the book of Romans was different, Roman women had more power more authority and an education Greek women purposefully lacked.
However perpetual virginity is absolutely refuted in Matthew 1:5, you can choose to argue for perpetual virginity but only by first acknowledging that it is directly contrary to Scripture.
If you looked back in the thread you'd see I agreed perpetual virginity was a crock posts ago. What I reject is the idea that there is a fine line in the 1st Millennium CE that can be drawn for the finalization of canon. The Canon was NOT closed (despite what Augustine thought) to the early church at any point till at least the Crusades when debate seemed to have ceased. The church fathers were discussing the value of texts for centuries and this resulted in some unusual texts and some contradictory doctrines working their way. I was trying to explain where perpetual virginity came from and why it persisted. I was not trying to argue that it was true.
Also, the Synod of Hippo, the first of Augustine's councils rejected Revelation. Revelation was not accepted by Augustine's councils until the second council of Carthage in 419.
A lot of the hangups over Paul would go away if it was understood that the epistles were letters to individual churches. Paul was happy to visit Priscilla and Aquillas joint ministry without remving Priscilla. Corinth was a strange place, it was the wordlwide headquarters of the cult of Aphrodite Pornae, which explains itself in its title. Priestesses of Aphrodite shaved their heads, and that explains the charge for Christian women in Corinth to grow their hair. Greeks educated themselves to a very high degree by for the times but only the menfolk were educated, this explains the teaching restrictions and silencing questions by women. No wonder the book of Romans was different, Roman women had more power more authority and an education Greek women purposefully lacked.
LordofHats wrote: Because then he'd never get to cry fantasy and no one would know how much he doesn't believe?
Yeah, how rude of me to interrupt a discussion of complex details of the emperor's fashion choices by pointing out that he's naked.
Ok Peregrine we get it..we ALL get it.... you don't believe in God or a God, or you have a lack of belief in a God(however you like to put it). I'm guessing that you are age 16 to 18 by the way you delight in "enlightening" us Religious types..(nevermind that your belief system is based on a set of assumptions that you will never admit to)
Here is a little hint..we have all heard it before.. and by your continual parroting of athiest rhetoric, which you probably read from a Hitchens or Dawkins book, or some other website, you really do not do yourself or side any service.
LordofHats wrote: Because then he'd never get to cry fantasy and no one would know how much he doesn't believe?
Yeah, how rude of me to interrupt a discussion of complex details of the emperor's fashion choices by pointing out that he's naked.
When a group of people are engaged in a conversation over fashion choices of a naked emperor, you have to ask yourself: "do they know that he's naked?"
It's a little presumptuous to assume that you are the only one that can see, right?
Interrupting a conversation is still rude, right? Sharing an insight that everybody has heard isn't pivotal.
I have no beef with atheism. As rational beings, there's no problem in deciding that faith is unwise. As beings of conscious, there's no logical flaw in deciding that there is a guiding force to the universe. But as beings of empathy, we can all agree that being a prick about your choice isn't cool.
generalgrog wrote: Ok Peregrine we get it..we ALL get it.... you don't believe in God or a God, or you have a lack of belief in a God(however you like to put it). I'm guessing that you are age 16 to 18 by the way you delight in "enlightening" us Religious types..(nevermind that your belief system is based on a set of assumptions that you will never admit to)
Oh good, the classic "atheism requires faith too" argument. Hasn't this one been disproved enough times already?
(Hint: all of the assumptions that atheism is based on are shared by every religion and, in fact, by every sane person who wants any hope of interacting with the world around them. The same is not true of religion, which makes an endless list of assumptions that are not required or shared by other belief systems.)
Polonius wrote: Interrupting a conversation is still rude, right?
Not when you have something legitimate to say. For example, criticizing someone for dismissing some questions of theology as "pointless trivia" while insisting that others are serious philosophical debates. Or dismissing comic book fandom as "obsessive geeks" like society as a whole does, but treating obsessive discussion of canon policy for another fictional work as a newsworthy event that deserves the highest level of respect. Why should these ridiculous statements go unchallenged?
And also, it's a forum. You know, the place where you have public discussions. It's not like I'm interrupting a private conversation, or even interrupting a discussion on a forum explicitly intended to be a community with shared beliefs.
Polonius wrote: Interrupting a conversation is still rude, right?
Not when you have something legitimate to say. For example, criticizing someone for dismissing some questions of theology as "pointless trivia" while insisting that others are serious philosophical debates. Or dismissing comic book fandom as "obsessive geeks" like society as a whole does, but treating obsessive discussion of canon policy for another fictional work as a newsworthy event that deserves the highest level of respect. Why should these ridiculous statements go unchallenged?
And also, it's a forum. You know, the place where you have public discussions. It's not like I'm interrupting a private conversation, or even interrupting a discussion on a forum explicitly intended to be a community with shared beliefs.
You used the word interrupt, not me. But yes, even a public conversation can be interrupted. It's not like Ron Paul and Ralph Nader can crash the presidential debates and claim they're simply entering a public discussion.
As long as you assume that all aspects of theology are equally worthless, nobody can convince you that there are points worth arguing and those that are pointless. You've made your decision and won't listen to any rationale. Good job keeping an open mind. Nobody is saying that theology needs to be important to you, any more than, say, the finer points of astrophysics need to be important to you. That doesn't mean they aren't important to others.
I'll let you in on a secret: religion is important to society because it's important to many of the people in it. And not important like a football game you have $20 on. I mean, important because it is a central part of the way a person interacts with the world, and understands life.
You think that's stupid, and that's fine. But you're not going to convince theists that god isn't important, and most moral atheists understand the importance of religion in the lives of the religious.
So, even if you want to reduce it to fanboyism. there's large and small areas of important in any area. The exact shade of superman's cape is less important than his powers, which in turn is less important than his moral stance on using those powers. If superman decided to use his powers to bring about an Objectivist utopia, that would dramatically change the nature of superman. If superman gained the ability to moved objects through telekinesis, that changes his skill set, but he's the same superman. If he changes to a scarlet cape... that's a pretty superifical change.
AustonT wrote: After more than three centuries of Hellenization its ridiculous to say the disciples couldn't differentiate between close family and cousins of varying degrees, and the Greek words for each.
Gee and here I thought the Jews were still writing in Hebrew and Aramaic and still capable of speaking their own language. Hellenization isn't everyone became Greek. It's everyone became more Greekish. Mark and Matthew were probably not written by any of Jesus' disciples but pulled together from early sources (one of Matthew's is MarK). You can see the effect of Hellenization on the Jews in Daniel and its not that great. The Jews heavily rejected Hellenization in the 2nd and 1st century BCE. Lots of sources outside of Palestine from Babylon to Persia and Egypt Greece and Roman attest to the cultural stubbornness of the ancient Jews. It's ridiculous to assume that because a people lived under Greek rule that they accepted every single aspect of Greek Culture while maintaining none of their own, especially not under Hellenization which was as much other cultures mixing in with Greek as it was Greek spreading through the ancient world.
If the Jews, especially the disciples of Christ were so resistant to Hellenization why was the New Testament written in Greek, why does Paul quote from the Septuagint instead of the bible in Hebrew? By the time Jesus was born more Jews were capable of reading and writing in Greek than in Aramaic or Hebrew. It's very evident that the Jews were capable of understanding the nuances of the language and relationships as we are aware that Barnabas is John Mark's cousin and not his "brother." I can specifically quote it if you think its necessary but by the time Rome conquered the Hasmoneans Judaism was inseparable from the Hellenization of Palestine. Cultural stubbornness perhaps, but outright ignorance of a language spoken nearly daily for nearly 400 years. No
Its not even aprocryphal for Christians
If you haven't figured out why this doesn't make sense, I cannot help you.
AustonT wrote: If the Jews, especially the disciples of Christ were so resistant to Hellenization why was the New Testament written in Greek, why does Paul quote from the Septuagint instead of the bible in Hebrew?
Probably has something to do with most of the authors of the books not being Jewish? John Mark was from North Africa for example. Paul was born in Turkey. Acts was written by Gentiles for Gentiles. Its not shocking it would use the Greek term for Cousin in relation to John Mark and Barnabas. Matthew was written by a Jew for Jews. Knowing that Jews had used the term in this manner its possible the author of Matthew also used it in the same manner to appeal to his audience.
And not all the books of the Church were written in Greek. Many were written in Aramaic and Syriac.
Cultural stubbornness perhaps, but outright ignorance of a language spoken nearly daily for nearly 400 years.
There is a difference between choosing to use words in one sense due to cultural tradition and being ignorant of their technical meaning.
If you haven't figured out why this doesn't make sense, I cannot help you.
There are 0 references to Acts of Thomas until Epiphanius briefly notes its existence in the 5th century (probably because of the Nestorian Crisis) and Gregory translates it in the 6th only for it to be ignored by pretty much everyone. It is never mentioned again until the Council of Trent which declared it heretical. I can only assume you're just throwing around the word apocrypha without knowing what it means and what kinds of books constitute the category with regards to canon.
AustonT wrote: If the Jews, especially the disciples of Christ were so resistant to Hellenization why was the New Testament written in Greek, why does Paul quote from the Septuagint instead of the bible in Hebrew?
Probably has something to do with most of the authors of the books not being Jewish? John Mark was from North Africa for example. Paul was born in Turkey. Acts was written by Gentiles for Gentiles. Its not shocking it would use the Greek term for Cousin in relation to John Mark and Barnabas. Matthew was written by a Jew for Jews. Knowing that Jews had used the term in this manner its possible the author of Matthew also used it in the same manner to appeal to his audience.
And not all the books of the Church were written in Greek. Many were written in Aramaic and Syriac.
You're joking right because I want you to be joking. Paul was a Pharisee and Jews were in North Africa in the 6th century BC. There were literally hundreds of thousands of Jews living in North Africa from Alexandria to Carthage. Not just most ALL of the authors of the canon were Jews. Which books of the canon were written originally in Aramaic or Syriac?
I can only assume you're just throwing around the word apocrypha without knowing what it means and what kinds of books constitute the category with regards to canon.
It's funny this encapsulates how I feel you are using the word apocrypha.
Wikipedia wrote:The early 3rd century text called Acts of Thomas is one of the New Testament apocrypha
Catholic Encyclopedia wrote:Acts of St. Thomas
No Apostolic apocryphon has reached us in a completeness equal to that of the Thomas Acts.
There are 0 references to Acts of Thomas until Epiphanius briefly notes its existence in the 5th century
And lets get to this. Epiphanius wrote the Panerion around 375 +/- 2 years Which is the 4th century and the Acts of Thomas were suppressed by name in 367, hense Nag Hammadi. It doesn't really matter when it was written it is still numbered among the apocryphal texts.
AustonT wrote: You're joking right because I want you to be joking. Paul was a Pharisee and Jews were in North Africa in the 6th century BC. There were literally hundreds of thousands of Jews living in North Africa from Alexandria to Carthage. Not just most ALL of the authors of the canon were Jews. Which books of the canon were written originally in Aramaic or Syriac?
Meh. Not joking. Brains was going out on me (EDIT: Being honest I've got so much going on up there I'm surprised I don't screw up like that more often). Though by certain irony Thomas was probably originally written in Syraic.
My point in identifying Paul as being born in turkey and John Mark in North Africa is to point out the difference in their origin relative to the author of Matthew, which compounds on top of the audiences they were writing for. For Paul. Mark might not have written anything.
The early 3rd century text called Acts of Thomas is one of the New Testament apocrypha
The joys of Wiki and religion escape. Also, the 3rd century bit in that opening sentence references the likely time of the writing of the original text (which also happens to be wrong it could be from the mid 2nd). Read the following sentence and then stop reading Wikipedia for information on the early church. Have you read the Apocrypha article? It's a giant mess of contradictory uses of the term "apocrypha" because no one can keep straight which sense of the word their using. EDIT: And for the love of god never go to the article on the Temple, 1st or 2nd.
Catholic Encyclopedia wrote:Acts of St. Thomas
No Apostolic apocryphon has reached us in a completeness equal to that of the Thomas Acts.
This is actually laughable. Acts of Thomas is probably the biggest mess of any text. People like to throw around additions made to books and alterations with no evidence they occurred but Thomas is nothing but a massive edit job and somehow everyone ignores that when discussing the book. As many as four different versions produced by different groups in three different languages, and no one can tell which is the original or if the original even exists anymore. Not my definition of complete. I suppose if you consider there aren't that many other apostolic works other than Thomas of Thomas's scale that might work.
It doesn't really matter when it was written it is still numbered among the apocryphal texts.
If you want to use apocryphal in the sense of "every text written/read ever" go ahead but that sense is meaningless as to whether or not the text was afforded any value by the church. The early church classified and categorized apocryphal texts. Thomas was never classified by anyone under any category in any source available to us, which is considerably remarkable since we have classifications for dozens of other texts including ones we don't have copies of.
I'd like a source for that suppression. I'm not an expert by any standard, but I've read plenty and I've never found any reference to a direct suppression of Thomas (ignoring that suppression probably means being declared heretical and would remove it from the apocrypha anyway). I think you're confusing it again with Thomas the Contender, which some have proposed is the lost Gospel of Matthias which was suppressed in the 4th century.
Being declared heretical sets a text into its own category of 'worth absolutely nothing" and there's no reason to consider Thomas as having any meaning to Orthodox Christians at any point in time. It probably only meant something to the Nestorians who likely produced the Syraic redacted version.
Meh. Not joking. Brains was going out on me (EDIT: Being honest I've got so much going on up there I'm surprised I don't screw up like that more often). Though by certain irony Thomas was probably originally written in Syraic.
It happens to all of us, I figured something like that was going on. I was aware that AoT was written in Syriac too that's why I asked what canon books were written in Aramaic or Syriac, the answer we are looking for here is none. Only books in the apocrophon are confirmed to have originated in Semitic languages.
My point in identifying Paul as being born in turkey and John Mark in North Africa is to point out the difference in their origin relative to the author of Matthew, which compounds on top of the audiences they were writing for. For Paul. Mark might not have written anything.
It's a fair point to make I suppose but contextually it makes no difference. In antiquity Jews were Jews. That's not to say they were homogenous, but the society of the Jews always has been and always will be deeply interconnected. That's why the Talmud that was largely received by Jews on the whole was the Babylonian Talmud and not the Jerusalem Talmud. It's why Jews the world over wrote to Alexandria, Cordoba, and Antioch instead of Palestine. Obviously I'm stretching the timeline to make a point. Paul and Matthew had more in common than they didn't. Not just because regardless of where he was born Paul was a child of Jerusalem.
The early 3rd century text called Acts of Thomas is one of the New Testament apocrypha
The joys of Wiki and religion escape. Also, the 3rd century bit in that opening sentence references the likely time of the writing of the original text (which also happens to be wrong it could be from the mid 2nd). Read the following sentence and then stop reading Wikipedia for information on the early church.
I don't read Wikipedia unless I have to, and my information on the early church comes from a formal background in religious history. For you to tell me not to read Wikipedia for information on the early church is insulting at best given your repeated assertion that the text we are discussing is not apocryphal and your continued belief that the church has to accept a book for it to be apocryphal, as evidenced later in this very post. It's useful to pull text from wiki when it's cited because it saves me having to transcribe from a book in my lap, not to mention finding the book. This quotation is, however correct, AoT is positively dated to the early 3rd and tentatively dated as early as the mid 2nd century.
Catholic Encyclopedia wrote:Acts of St. Thomas
No Apostolic apocryphon has reached us in a completeness equal to that of the Thomas Acts.
This is actually laughable. Acts of Thomas is probably the biggest mess of any text. People like to throw around additions made to books and alterations with no evidence they occurred but Thomas is nothing but a massive edit job and somehow everyone ignores that when discussing the book. As many as four different versions produced by different groups in three different languages, and no one can tell which is the original or if the original even exists anymore. Not my definition of complete. I suppose if you consider there aren't that many other apostolic works other than Thomas of Thomas's scale that might work.
It's not laughable at all, so many version of AoT have been found in so many languages that it is easy to determine which versions are divergent, redacted, or incomplete. As opposed to say the Apocalypse of Peter which cannot be confirmed by cross examining editions.
It doesn't really matter when it was written it is still numbered among the apocryphal texts.
If you want to use apocryphal in the sense of "every text written/read ever" go ahead but that sense is meaningless as to whether or not the text was afforded any value by the church.
Yeah silly me using the actual definition of the word apocrypha instead of making my own up, if you want to be childish about it none of the Christian texts are apocryphal at all, because the word originally refers to the 14 books included in the Septuagint. The actual definition of apocryphal is:
Various religious writings of uncertain origin regarded by some as inspired, but rejected by most authorities.
It has literally nothing to do with the codification or lack thereof of the church. Simply Christian writings not in the canon. You know the definition religious historians have agreed upon for more than a century.
Being declared heretical sets a text into its own category of 'worth absolutely nothing"
And we'll end with that: this statement is rubbish.
oh wait let me check what I said...
with anger management issues and did awesome stuff like burning his own followers to death for petty offenses or sending bears to slaughter rude children. Khorne just wishes he was that cool
