Conquer Club

tzor wrote:

Thezzaruz wrote:Yes I would expect him to have had a wife and probably children too. If Mary is that wife and if any children where still living at the time when he runs around with his disciples I don't know or care about.

But if he did have a wife and children, what is the thing with his mother at the crucifixion scene? The notion of "giving" his mother to John and vice versa? Couldn't his wife take care of his mother? There are more things that just don't make sense if we assume that Jesus was married. (Including his comments that he was more or less "homeless," as in "The Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.") References to Peter being married abounds, Jesus stays at Peter's house, Paul mentions this and so forth, but no reference to Jesus's bride.

I'm saying that stuff was cut a loooonngggg time ago. Along with anything that makes him appear very mortal. Someone should get on this...

tzor wrote:

Thezzaruz wrote:Yes I would expect him to have had a wife and probably children too. If Mary is that wife and if any children where still living at the time when he runs around with his disciples I don't know or care about.

But if he did have a wife and children, what is the thing with his mother at the crucifixion scene? The notion of "giving" his mother to John and vice versa? Couldn't his wife take care of his mother? There are more things that just don't make sense if we assume that Jesus was married. (Including his comments that he was more or less "homeless," as in "The Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.") References to Peter being married abounds, Jesus stays at Peter's house, Paul mentions this and so forth, but no reference to Jesus's bride.

St Paul was also a firm advocate of celibacy, it is inconceivable that he would not have held Jesus up as an example of an unmarried and chaste man. The compelling evidence is surely that at the time in question marriage was considered the only natural state for an adult Judaic male, a 30 year old bachelor would have been considered very odd indeed. A politician today would not seek to gain mainstream support by being a wacko, at a time when attitutes were 10 times more rigid taking such a stance would have been ridiculous - why would he have been so foolhardy ?

joecoolfrog wrote:The compelling evidence is surely that at the time in question marriage was considered the only natural state for an adult Judaic male, a 30 year old bachelor would have been considered very odd indeed. A politician today would not seek to gain mainstream support by being a wacko, at a time when attitutes were 10 times more rigid taking such a stance would have been ridiculous - why would he have been so foolhardy ?

It would be odd, but he was far from a mainstream politician. He often ate with "sinners" and his group was considered a bunch of drunks with no respect for the proper observance of the law. It might also have been the case that people were trying to hook him up with somebody, like Lazarus with his sisters (Martha and Mary).

But compared to his cousin, he was practically normal.

The early Catholic Church, in an attempt to homogenize the Christian factions and consilidate power for the throne actively promoted a faith with a deified Christ, stamping out any Gnostic (or any other) belief about Jesus by any means necessary. Books not included in the "Canon" were burned, and anything that suggested that Christ was a man was destroyed. As much as possible anyway.

Was Jesus married? I think so. At the time, a 30 something Rabbi wouldn't have been taken seriously by anyone as a bachelor, especially travelling with a group of men. Jesus may have been revolutionary, but none of his ideas were contrary to the basic Jewish beliefs about marriage. It just isn't addressed in the Biblical cannon.

Was he married to Mary? Again - possibly. There is evidence to support it. The "kisses," the fact that she was a disciple in every way, the theories about her "means" and how she may have been financially backing Christ and his followers, the fact that she was the first person to see him when he "rose..."

I don't KNOW if Jesus was married to Mary, or if he was even married at all. I do know that there is absolutely no proof that he wasn't.

Whore.

Deadpool809 wrote:The early Catholic Church, in an attempt to homogenize the Christian factions and consilidate power for the throne actively promoted a faith with a deified Christ, stamping out any Gnostic (or any other) belief about Jesus by any means necessary. Books not included in the "Canon" were burned, and anything that suggested that Christ was a man was destroyed. As much as possible anyway.

Was Jesus married? I think so. At the time, a 30 something Rabbi wouldn't have been taken seriously by anyone as a bachelor, especially travelling with a group of men. Jesus may have been revolutionary, but none of his ideas were contrary to the basic Jewish beliefs about marriage. It just isn't addressed in the Biblical cannon.

Was he married to Mary? Again - possibly. There is evidence to support it. The "kisses," the fact that she was a disciple in every way, the theories about her "means" and how she may have been financially backing Christ and his followers, the fact that she was the first person to see him when he "rose..."

I don't KNOW if Jesus was married to Mary, or if he was even married at all. I do know that there is absolutely no proof that he wasn't.

I like this guy.

daddy1gringo wrote: It is abundantly clear that there are certain writings that were regarded as "Holy Scripture" by those who actually learned from Jesus and from those immediate followers. It is also clear, and admitted even by those who try to claim that the "other gospels" are just as legitimate, that they were not even written until many years later.

You know this is just silly. Matthew and Mark were most likely written about 20 years (40-50 AD) after Jesus died, Luke about 50 years (around 75AD) and John about 60 years (around 90 AD).

Deadpool809 wrote:The early Catholic Church, in an attempt to homogenize the Christian factions and consilidate power for the throne actively promoted a faith with a deified Christ, stamping out any Gnostic (or any other) belief about Jesus by any means necessary. Books not included in the "Canon" were burned, and anything that suggested that Christ was a man was destroyed. As much as possible anyway.

Right, tell me another story. The early "Catholic" Church, was disorganized and for the most part persecuted. They weren't a position to do much of anything. It took hundreds of years to finalize the list (you know that is what "canon" means right) of recognized books. Revelation was not on a lot of the church's lists for the first few centuries.

The impact of the Gnostic sects has been mostly forgotten because of the Reformation, but they were a serious challenge to the Church's authority. They were prolific writers, while the sucessors of the Apostles were not. They also argued from the same scriptures that the "Catholic" Church used as well.

Last and far from least, it wasn't the Christians who finally extinguished most of the gnostic communities, it was Islam.

tzor wrote:

Deadpool809 wrote:The early Catholic Church, in an attempt to homogenize the Christian factions and consilidate power for the throne actively promoted a faith with a deified Christ, stamping out any Gnostic (or any other) belief about Jesus by any means necessary. Books not included in the "Canon" were burned, and anything that suggested that Christ was a man was destroyed. As much as possible anyway.

Right, tell me another story. The early "Catholic" Church, was disorganized and for the most part persecuted. They weren't a position to do much of anything. It took hundreds of years to finalize the list (you know that is what "canon" means right) of recognized books. Revelation was not on a lot of the church's lists for the first few centuries.

But to blindly believe that the copies of 2000 year old documents you have today are 100% intact, 100% complete, 100% original and 100% unaltered is nothing but foolish.

Backglass wrote:But to blindly believe that the copies of 2000 year old documents you have today are 100% intact, 100% complete, 100% original and 100% unaltered is nothing but foolish.

Well, sure, I suppose so. Makes perfect sense to me. That's why the Catholic Church actually does (gasp) research into Biblical writings, searches for eariler texts, analyzes the writing to determine the authors behind the texts and so on and so forth. Clearly the early writings had edits and additions made to them. The source material for the synoptic gospels can only be guess at, no one as ever seen a hard copy of the so called "Q" manuscript. Whole chapters (note this is a vague term as the documents weren't divided into chapters until the second millenimum) were added by subsequent editors.

Normally this might annoy the crap out of a person, especially if you were a people of the "book." But it is the church, not the scriptures which is the "pillar and bulwark of truth." It is the church, inspired by the Holy Spirit that looked at, debated, and prayed over the various writings considered sacred by the various local churches. It was the church that included in the end Revelation and omitted in the end the Didache.

Given that there is a lot we do know about the scriptures; which communities were responsible for what texts and the approxomite time lines they were written.

tzor wrote:But it is the church, not the scriptures which is the "pillar and bulwark of truth."

I think Jay would beg to differ with you.

Backglass wrote:

tzor wrote:But it is the church, not the scriptures which is the "pillar and bulwark of truth."

I think Jay would beg to differ with you.

If he's saying that the church is the "pillar of truth" and not God's Word, then yes, I would disagree.

jay_a2j wrote:If he's saying that the church is the "pillar of truth" and not God's Word, then yes, I would disagree.

Actually he's saying the the church is the "pillar of truth", not the random heavily edited, thrice translated, power-seekingly modified, antiquated fairytale scratchings of primitive cavemen, that some people are naive enough to regard as being God's Word.

Dancing Mustard wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:If he's saying that the church is the "pillar of truth" and not God's Word, then yes, I would disagree.

Actually he's saying the the church is the "pillar of truth", not the random heavily edited, thrice translated, power-seekingly modified, antiquated fairytale scratchings of primitive cavemen, that some people are naive enough to regard as being God's Word.

Hey! They had mud huts, ass.

jay_a2j wrote:

Backglass wrote:

tzor wrote:But it is the church, not the scriptures which is the "pillar and bulwark of truth."

I think Jay would beg to differ with you.

If he's saying that the church is the "pillar of truth" and not God's Word, then yes, I would disagree.

I wouldn't move that pawn over there if I were you.
No really, well if you insist ... CHECK MATE.

You see, I was quoting "God's Word." 1 Timothy 3:15

But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.

(Yes I pulled a fast one even on Dancing Mustard.)

Jesus established not a collection of Books, but a Church. He built that Church upon the "rock" that was Peter, and its foundation upon the Apostles who went out on that Pentacost day filled with the Holy Spirit and taught without fear of persecution. Eventually people in the church had a bright idea, "you know ... perhaps we should be writing this stuff down and saving those letters of the Apostles as well because we can read them again and again just like the other scriptures."

tzor wrote:

Deadpool809 wrote:The early Catholic Church, in an attempt to homogenize the Christian factions and consilidate power for the throne actively promoted a faith with a deified Christ, stamping out any Gnostic (or any other) belief about Jesus by any means necessary. Books not included in the "Canon" were burned, and anything that suggested that Christ was a man was destroyed. As much as possible anyway.

Right, tell me another story. The early "Catholic" Church, was disorganized and for the most part persecuted. They weren't a position to do much of anything. It took hundreds of years to finalize the list (you know that is what "canon" means right) of recognized books. Revelation was not on a lot of the church's lists for the first few centuries.

The impact of the Gnostic sects has been mostly forgotten because of the Reformation, but they were a serious challenge to the Church's authority. They were prolific writers, while the sucessors of the Apostles were not. They also argued from the same scriptures that the "Catholic" Church used as well.

Last and far from least, it wasn't the Christians who finally extinguished most of the gnostic communities, it was Islam.

It isn't a "story" - it is history. The whole point of the formation of the Catholic Church was to increase the power of the Roman Emperor - if Faith is controlled by the State, then the State has more power. The whole idea of Jesus as divine was essential to their control, and starting with Constantine, military might was used to suppress heretics. The organization you say was persecuted stopped being so during Constantine's reign, and that is when it started its rise towards becoming the successor to the power of the Roman Empire.

Of COURSE the Romans weren't the only ones responsible for exterminating Gnostics. Hell, the Muslim's didn't even finish the job - there are still some around today in Iraq and other Middle Eastern nations. But the Catholic Church became the defining voice of the Christian faith for centuries, because of the power they achieved. Part of that power came because they consolidated their version of the faith (by force, and not conversion), and brutally suppressed anyone in their sphere of influence that disagreed with it.

Gnostic texts were dropped from the bible for various reasons, and destroyed as heretical when found. Sometime because it presented a view of Christ as anything other than divine and perfect (including texts describing Christ as a child - the powerful son of God who used his power to kill in a fit of rage), as anything other than the literal Son of God, anything written by a woman, and especially anything that portrayed him as being human - and stories about his wife would fit that bill.

You can call it stories if you like - I call that blind devotion to a faith. I am not saying you are wrong about who and what Jesus was, but you are completely wrong if you feel the Catholic Church was in any way innocent, seeking after the truth. Especially for the vast bulk of its history. It was an organization devoted to acquiring and maintaining power, and through the centuries used extraordinary means to suppress any belief that contradicted the one that made them God's voice on Earth.

Not attacking the Catholic faith - just those that brought it to power.

And I am sorry - quoting the Bible to prove anything kills your argument. You can't prove that the Bible is 100% true and unaltered when history proves that it is very much altered.And stories passed down over a few generations before finally being written down does not constitute first-hand accounts. Oral tradition is shakey at best, and when you have a hundred+ year game of telephone going on, crossing borders and languages... well, let's just say that I very much doubt that Christ's literal words are transcribed in the Bible. I believe the general history presented in the New Testament is more-or-less true, but the specifics are very much a product of whatever chronicler finally put the story to paper.

Deadpool809 wrote:It isn't a "story" - it is history. The whole point of the formation of the Catholic Church was to increase the power of the Roman Emperor - if Faith is controlled by the State, then the State has more power. The whole idea of Jesus as divine was essential to their control, and starting with Constantine, military might was used to suppress heretics. The organization you say was persecuted stopped being so during Constantine's reign, and that is when it started its rise towards becoming the successor to the power of the Roman Empire.

Let's start at the very beginning. Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus legalizes Christianity in 313

The Four Gospels had been agreed to in 182
Most of the books were already decided on in 220 with the following not being settled on.
Hebrews, II Peter, II and III John, James, Jude, Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, and probably the Gospel of the Hebrews.

Gnostic texts were never a part of the dicussion on the canon of the New Testament.

And for the Gnostic texts about the early childhood of Jesus; these had him making major miracles on practically a daily basis, turning clay birds into real birds (and on a Sabbath no less) for no other reason other than shits and giggles.

There were plenty of differences between Gnostics and Christians and very little of it had to do with the divine nature of Jesus. In fact it took centuries of internal debates before the Church could make definitive statements about the nature of Jesus with the assurance that the universal church was clearly all in agreement.

Curmudgeonx wrote:This thread is already full of Fail.

Great phrase