|
28109. Adam Selene - 3/26/2006 11:51:19 PM Me: What is the official stance of the Christion community on these writings?
Jen: That they're Gnostic.
Well, that's hardly an indictment. "Gnostic" simply refers to the early christians who focused on the personnal relationships between each individual and their god ("Gnostic" refers to "knowledge", specifically - direct, personnal knowledge), which was anathema to the Catholic church who wanted their priests to intervene between god and the believer. After all, if you don't need priests... you don't need the pope, and where would you get your gold without tithing? :)
Before emporer (er, "saint") Constantine blessed the Catholic church and received their allegience in return, gnostics were actually in the majority.
In fact, today we call gnostics, "protestents." (Ok, that's a bit glib, but essentially honest.)
About the dates - yes, the actual documents may be anywhere from 100 to 300 AD, but that begs the question. They have sat, undisturbed, since then with no church intervention, which gives them just at least as much legitemacy as the official canon, if not more.
Does that speak to me? Well.. it jibes with other radical interpretations of historical Jesus that hold he was married to Mary Magdalen. In fact, it's very hard to interpret the water-to-wine wedding as anything other than the marriage of Jesus to someone.
1) Jews were required to be married. If Jesus were single, it would have been discussed at nauseum in the gospels. Yet his status is never mentioned in the canon.
2) The bridegrooms mother was responsible for providing the wine at weddings. Jesus's mother was horrified that they ran out and ordered Jesus to provide more wine, against his protestation that "it wasn't his time."
3) The "ruler of the feast" thanked the bridegroom for the excellent wine....
2+2 still equals 4, in my book. :) 28110. jexster - 3/27/2006 5:09:37 AM A Second Gay Anglican Bishop?
At least the one's we know about..
The Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of CA (SF, Alameda. Marin, San Mateo) has approved the following for election to replace the outgoing Bishop Swing, as diocesan Bishop of Cahleefohnia.
Note candidate number two. Michael's the partner of the rector of my parish!! He was added by pettion when the Search Committee failed to include him in the list of nominees
28111. thoughtful - 3/27/2006 2:46:50 PM This one's for Jen:
(March 24, 2006)—Tennessee authorities said Friday that the wife of murdered Selmer, Tenn. minister Matthew Winkler has confessed to the killing.
Winkler was the popular pastor of the Fourth Street Church of Christ in Selmer.
Church members found his body Wednesday night in the bedroom of the church parsonage after he failed to show up for an evening service.
He had been shot once in the back. There were no signs of a struggle, authorities said.
Winkler’s wife and three daughters were missing and the family’s minivan was not at the home.
The discovery of the body sparked a statewide search for the woman and three children.
They were later found in Orange Beach, Ala.
The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation said earlier Friday it had gathered enough information to charge Mary Winkler with first-degree murder.
During a news conference late Friday morning, authorities said she has confessed to killing her husband.
I posted it here because it had to do with a minister. 28112. wonkers2 - 3/27/2006 3:55:23 PM I wonder what the good rev. did or said before she shot him? 28113. PelleNilsson - 3/27/2006 4:18:33 PM Why have you deserted me? 28114. wonkers2 - 3/27/2006 4:37:29 PM TV reports said the police say they know why she shot him but they aren't ready to reveal her motive. 28115. judithathome - 3/27/2006 5:18:54 PM Do you realize that by addressing Jexster you are encouraging spam!? Now we're going to hear about how Katrina was an act of God and how Saint So and So of Jexster's church was venerated today and the Latin mass!!
I'm hoping you said this in jest because last I heard, there were no rules here about whom I could or could not post to...
Besides, it's a good subject for this thread. Surely you don't believe God smote New Orleans for its wicked ways? If God did use a hurricane to smite the earth, it was probably to wake us up about global warming! ;-) I'm sure he's not too pleased with how we're trashing his creation.
28116. jexster - 3/27/2006 5:54:37 PM Jen wasn't Katrina an act of God wherein the Ancient of Days decided that because Lousiana and Mississippi voted to elect a mass murderer and liar, they should suffer for the sins, a foretaste as it were and warning of their eternal damnation.
I wouldn't wanna get left behind on this one. 28117. jexster - 3/27/2006 5:55:18 PM Cornpone, snake-chunkin heretic 28118. jexster - 3/27/2006 5:56:22 PM God set fire to Tejas
Burn baby burn 28119. Adam Selene - 3/29/2006 6:47:07 PM What happened to Jen? Is she the only non-athiest Motie? 28120. Jenerator - 3/29/2006 10:01:05 PM Here I am!
;-)
Sorry, I got side-tracked with things.
28121. Jenerator - 3/29/2006 10:26:01 PM Adam,
[Me: What is the official stance of the Christion community on these writings?
Jen: That they're Gnostic.]
Well, that's hardly an indictment. "Gnostic" simply refers to the early christians who focused on the personnal relationships between each individual and their god ("Gnostic" refers to "knowledge", specifically - direct, personnal knowledge), which was anathema to the Catholic church who wanted their priests to intervene between god and the believer.
Gnosis means knowledge, but gnosticism refers to *secret* knowledge. Gnostics claimed to have the hidden, secret teachings of Jesus and of the disciples and that the gnosis was really the divinity within us.
I'd argue that the canonical Gospels (and the Bible in it's entirety, actually) demonstrate a deep personal love between God and his creation. I am not sure I qam understaing your conclusion that the early Church hated personal relationships with God. The early community of believers consisted of the original apostles and disciples who had personal relationships with Christ himself! Furthermore, the Church became organizaed for self-preservation, and while I disagree with some of its practices (I am not a Catholic, btw) I think it was crucial for it to become hierarchical and structured. The early Fathers and theologians protected the Church from the rising heresies by forumlating its beliefs and defenses that were in existence during the time of the apostles, eye witnesses and first generation of believers. That way, it could be tested from what was known, not created by later generations. The Church then was not the Church of the Middle Ages.
After all, if you don't need priests... you don't need the pope, and where would you get your gold without tithing? :)
You're talking about practices which came into play later. And I agree with you that corruption definitely took a hold during some dark times. That's why I respect Martin Luther (and his predecessors like William Tyndale so much!)
Before emporer (er, "saint") Constantine blessed the Catholic church and received their allegience in return, gnostics were actually in the majority.
I don't think so!
In fact, today we call gnostics, "protestents." (Ok, that's a bit glib, but essentially honest.)
I have never heard this before and don't really know what you're talking about. (?)
About the dates - yes, the actual documents may be anywhere from 100 to 300 AD, but that begs the question. They have sat, undisturbed, since then with no church intervention, which gives them just at least as much legitemacy as the official canon, if not more.
Why is that? If a copy of a Gnostic document is untouched for two millennia (and say 20 fragments of it exist in total) you're saying it is more reliable than a collection of Canonized scripture which includes older copies than the Gnostic ones and include those that have remained untouched for longer than the Gnostic ones and are in greater number (thus supporting accuracy)??
That isn't a strong argument. We have a ton of manuscript evidence for the New Testament and the Gnostic literature stands in opposition to it. They teach different things and they're not reconciliable.
Does that speak to me? Well.. it jibes with other radical interpretations of historical Jesus that hold he was married to Mary Magdalen. In fact, it's very hard to interpret the water-to-wine wedding as anything other than the marriage of Jesus to someone.
I completely disagree. There are different genres within the New Testament for sure, but how you conclude that the wedding feast is an allegory or a veiled reference to a married Jesus is beyond me. There's absolutely no basis in scripture to believe Christ was married.
(1) Jews were required to be married.
This I will have to check. I have never heard of such a rule.
If Jesus were single, it would have been discussed at nauseum in the gospels.
It was discussed. He appears alone and there is no mention of a wife! EVER!!
Yet his status is never mentioned in the canon.
??
2) The bridegrooms mother was responsible for providing the wine at weddings. Jesus's mother was horrified that they ran out and ordered Jesus to provide more wine, against his protestation that "it wasn't his time."
So.(?)
3) The "ruler of the feast" thanked the bridegroom for the excellent wine....
I am not understanding how you came to your conclusion.
28122. uzmakk - 3/29/2006 10:52:59 PM Jexster, didn't you quote Chesterton recently on this thread? I swear I saw a Chesterton quote this morning. 28123. Adam Selene - 3/30/2006 12:54:51 AM Jen - the fact that Jesus' marital status was never mentioned, is hardly "discussed". You might as well say that it was never mentioned that he didn't fly therefore he had wings.
On point 2: why would Jesus' mother be so worried about the wine if it wasn't her responsiblity? If you went to a stranger's party and they ran out of wine, would you order your son to get wine? And if your son did get the wine, would you expect the host to thank someone else for it, or would they thank your son (the bridegroom?) 28124. iiibbb - 3/30/2006 4:53:41 PM Message # 28119
I'm a non-athiest. I am a protestant... or at least raised that way. I am essentially non-denominational.
Christian history is very convoluted.
I don't really discuss religion on the internet though. I can't say I've ever really encountered one that I would consider a positive experience, or improved or changed my understanding. I mean... I get a couple of nuggets here and there, but there is usually way too much baggage and one-upsmanship... or downright viciousness. 28125. wonkers2 - 3/30/2006 5:08:50 PM Yeah its even worse than gun control! :-) 28126. PelleNilsson - 3/30/2006 5:15:46 PM I'm not very familiar with Christian gnosticism but I guess it is not too different from other manifestations of the creed. If so, it has far less in common with the OT than the canonical texts. 28127. iiibbb - 3/30/2006 5:24:37 PM Message # 28125
Dude... maybe you have no idea how tame that gun control is.
I don't much mind arguing policy with passionate people... even if it's heated. I don't care for personal attacks... even when I do them.
Religious 'discussions' always seem to go that way... perhaps because criticisms are inherently personal. 28128. PelleNilsson - 3/30/2006 7:03:47 PM Let's keep the gun stuff out of here, please.
|
