|
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. 28129. iiibbb - 3/30/2006 7:48:41 PM Gun stuff? We're talking about the nature of the discussion... not guns. Sheesh.
For someone who snipes that thread... you sure are senstive. 28130. jexster - 3/30/2006 8:54:19 PM From the Forward, a jewish publication. I think they're reconsidering too. Not many Jews are warm to the Left Behind evangelical nightmare of conversions & baptisms in rivers of Jewish blood.
Evangelicals Reconsider Bush's Drive in Mideast
Religious Christian conservatives spent the past few weeks urging the White House to stop an Afghan court from executing Abdul Rahman, a convert to Christianity who is accused of violating Islamic law. Though the case was dismissed, the controversy left the Christian Right questioning the Bush administration's assumption that Muslim countries can become democratic even while adhering to Islamic law and Muslim customs. According to Jim Jacobson, president of conservative human rights organization Christian Freedom International, the case shows that "democracy isn't the only answer." The anger within the GOP base comes at a time when Bush is increasingly dependent on Christian conservative support for the Iraq War. 28131. jexster - 4/2/2006 9:08:01 PM Attende Domine (Hearken, O Lord)
Mozarabic 10th Century Hymn of Praise
R: Attende Domine, et miserere, quia peccavimus tibi.
Ad te Rex summe, omnium redemptor, oculos nostros sublevamus
flentes: exaudi, Christe, supplicantum preces. R.
Dextera Patris, lapis angularis, via salutis, ianua caelestis,
ablue nostri maculas delicti. R.
Rogamus, Deus, tuam maiestatem: auribus sacris gemitus exaudi:
crimina nostra placidus indulge. R.
Tibi fatemur crimina admissa: contrito corde pandimus occulta: tua
Redemptor, pietas ignoscat. R.
Innocens captus, nec repugnans ductus, testibus falsis pro impiis
damnatus: quos redemisti, tu conserva, Christe. R.
R: Hearken, O Lord, and have mercy, for we have sinned against
Thee.
Crying, we raise our eyes to Thee, Sovereign King, Redeemer of
all. Listen, Christ, to the pleas of the supplicant sinners. R.
Thou art at the Right Hand of God the Father, the Keystone, the
Way of salvation and Gate of Heaven, cleanse the stains of our
sins. R.
O God, we beseech Thy majesty to hear our groans; to forgive our
sins. R.
We confess to Thee our consented sins; we declare our hidden sins
with contrite heart; in Thy mercy, O Redeemer, forgive them. R.
Thou wert captured, being innocent; brought about without
resistance, condemned by impious men with false witnesses. O
Christ keep safe those whom Thou hast redeemed. R.
28132. jexster - 4/5/2006 5:39:24 AM I am CONVERTING to Buddhism
I don't think that Buddhists do "conversions"..too dualistic but if they do..
After seeing a Daily Show spot yesterday about the rumored reincarnation of the Buddha, and much mediation
Marry me Mr. Buddha
How much for a one-way ticket to Nepal???
Any Mote operatives in the area?
MARJAR BINKS!!
‘Buddha’ boy goes missing in Nepal>/b>
KATHMANDU: Nepalese police began hunting yesterday for a teenaged boy who some people believe is an reincarnation of Buddha after he disappeared from the site where he had been meditating for almost 10 months.
Fifteen-year-old Ram Bahadur Bamjon has not been seen since early Saturday, said Hari Krishna Khatiwada, a district official of Bara, 150km southeast of Kathmandu.
The boy had been meditating there without food or water since May. Some of his followers are also missing.
“So far we have found no trace of them,” Khatiwada said.
Sitting cross-legged beneath a “pipal” tree, which is sacred to Hindus, Bomjon drew more than 100,000 people to the dense forests in southeastern Nepal.
But visitors were only allowed to see him from 50 metres away and the boy was hidden from public view at night behind a curtain drawn by his followers. – Reuters
I Think I'm Going To Katmandu,
That's Really, Really Where I'm Going To.
If I Ever Get Out Of Here,
That's What I'm Gonna Do.
K-K-K-K-K-Katmandu,
I Think That's Where I'm Going To.
If I Ever Get Out Of Here,
I'm Going To Katmandu.
I Got No Kick Against The West Coast
Warner Brothers Are Such Good Hosts.
I Raise My Whiskey Glass And Give Them A Toast,
I'm Sure They Know It's True.
I Got No Rap Against The Southern States.
Every Time I've Been There It's Been Great.
But Now I'm Leaving And I Can't Be Late
And To Myself Be True.
28133. Adam Selene - 4/5/2006 11:52:12 PM Sitting under a tree in the distance for weeks at a time... uh, ya, that gives me faith for my soul, that is soooo deeep, man.... like groovy! The universe is god!! You are god too!!!! 28134. Adam Selene - 4/7/2006 2:35:25 PM So what's the Church's position on the "new" Judas gospel? The Baltimore Sun reported that the Catholic Church had actually destroyed earlier copies of this on the grounds that it was heresy - but luckily this copy survived. The paper also discussed gnosticism as in the secret knowledge that Jesus only gave to a chosen few, and the fact that there were many more diverse churches and practices in the early years after Jesus than we are led to believe.
Like it or not - the Da Vinci Code has made all this suddenly an acceptable topic of conversation. I bet the pope is having fits. 28135. anomie - 4/8/2006 12:06:33 AM The Judas thing reminds me of a book called teh Passover Plot from way back in the early seventies - maybe 60s, so it's nothing new except for the scripture bit.
When you think about it, Jesus must have orchestrated everthing, whether as a human to fulfill his idea of the scriptures of the time, or divinely if he was God. So I don;t know why Christians would be upset to know that he instructed Judas in some small details like when to betray him. 28136. Adam Selene - 4/8/2006 1:16:47 AM I just watched the News Hour. There was a Catholic priest (don't remember his name) who dissembled profusely about how heretical gospels are not authentic..... talk about your circular, self-serving reasoning! whoosh- right over my head. 28137. jexster - 4/8/2006 3:57:59 AM O God, who in a wonderful Sacrament has left to us a memorial of your passion: Grant us so to venerate the sacred mysteries of your Body and Blood, that we may ever perceive within ourselves the fruits of redemption; through our Lord Jesus Christ, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.
28138. pelty - 4/14/2006 6:11:12 PM "There was a Catholic priest (don't remember his name) who dissembled profusely about how heretical gospels are not authentic."
"Authentic" probably is not the best word. They are certainly "authentic" and representative of a certain strain of early Christian (defined broadly) thought, but are they early or more factual? Well, most would answer that they are certainly of a later date than the traditional gospels (or at least the Synoptics). As for their historical accuracy, I suppose that is for the individual to decide.
|
 |
Go To Mote #
|
|
