Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 The Bringer wrote:
Jesus referred to the Church as his bride.

When

 AustonT wrote:

 The Bringer wrote:
Jesus referred to the Church as his bride.

When

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.

 AustonT wrote:

 The Bringer wrote:
Jesus referred to the Church as his bride.

When

Referring to this tradition, I believe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_of_Christ

Which I'm sure you knew. Please get to your point.

But did Jesus actually say it?

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.

Paul, the arch-heretic ... oh boy.

"You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my ... community of prayer and grace ..."

I guess I should revise that statement.

No, your statement is correct as you wrote it.

 Manchu wrote:
Paul, the arch-heretic ... oh boy.

"You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my ... community of prayer and grace ..."

You know that Peter is a different person right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
No, your statement is correct as you wrote it.

You mean correct like what I quoted above. You're batting 1.000

This time, I can't even guess what you're getting at.

What exactly is confusing you

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.

 Manchu wrote:
So what?

Thats how rumors get started...

 CT GAMER wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
So what?

Thats how rumors get started...

Not in those days, I think.

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.

no kidding
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/07/us/married-roman-catholic-priests-are-testing-a-tradition.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.www

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

 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.

 AustonT wrote:

 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.

no kidding
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/07/us/married-roman-catholic-priests-are-testing-a-tradition.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.www

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).


GG

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.

So if Jesus had a possible wife...does make him more human?

Nothing in the ministry of Jesus looses any value or meaning if he was in fact married.

 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.

 LordofHats wrote:


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"

Well what do ya know...I didn't say that at all.

GG

 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.

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

 generalgrog wrote:


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.