How many of you people...

[Spurminator]

I don't really think it's the job of the church to condone or discuss condom use/AIDS. The position of the church is Don't Have Sex. I think the problem is that Christians take that position too far a lot of times and treat premarital sex as some sort of unforgiveable and abominable sin greater than all others. And that comes back to the flaws of the followers.

[Jekka]

Jekka:

I’m no expert in the early Christian writings so my answer to your question might be incomplete.

From what I’ve read, there are a number of books that were left out of the New Testament. Some of them are much more famous than the Book of Mary Magdalene, such as the Gospels of Thomas, Peter and James. Some of these Gospels, particularly the Gospel of Thomas, are widely used by Gnostic religions.

Historically, the Fathers of the Church only relied on the four Gospels that made it to the New Testament because they believed those were the ones written by people who heard the Word directly from people who had direct contact with Jesus. That is the case of the Gospels of Luke, Matthew and Mark. People believe the Gospel of John was written by the beloved Apostle, but scholars have their doubts.

At the Nicene Council in the 4th Century, the Bishops got together to decide which books were, going forward, going to be included in the New Testament. They discarded all except the four we know. The reason was because they believed most of them were forgeries. The only true, divinely inspired Gospels are the four Gospels we know (that’s what the Nicene Counsel decreed). From what I’ve heard, most of the New Testament Apocrypha has been proved to be forgeries even by modern scholars. Most scholars agree that those books were written in the second half of the 2nd Century and in the 3rd Century. The Gospels of Mark, Luke and Matthew are said to be written between 60 and 70AD, while the Gospel of John is believed to be written between 80 and 90 AD.

If by Apocrypha you are referring to the books included in the Greek version of the Old Testament, but not included in the Hebrew Bible, then the Catholic Bible includes most of it. It’s the Protestant Bibles which not include the Apocrypha (except the King James version)

I'm aware of the history of the modern Bible. Apocrypha is Greek for hidden or secret book and can be applied to either the new or old testament scripture - there are books on both sides that have been omitted, including the specific ones you mentioned in the new testament. It is true that the Catholic bible does include more of these texts than most Protestant bibles - but more than mere inclusion in publication, it is also an issue as to which of the books are actually studied and taught amongst laymen. The book of Mary Magdalene in particular is rarely disputed as authentic (albeit incomplete), and has been known about for ages, but was not included - it is, after all, difficult to maintain the silence of women in church that Paul calls for in Corinthians (which is almost always taken out of context) when there is evidence that Jesus actually considered a woman his equal. It's about maintaining the status quo and safeguarding power.

[smeagol]

The refusal to allow women as priests

I will pass on this one. I don’t feel I know enough Catholic Doctrine to answer it. Maybe more knowledgeable posters, such as travis, can take a shot at it.

and the refusal to allow priests to marry.

This is something that is rooted in the tradition of the Catholic Church since its inception. Many Catholic priests of the early centuries did not marry. But many others did (including Popes). I believe it was decreed an obligation of Catholic Priests to stay celibate in the 10th Century.

The reasons are probably not limited to the two I will give you:

1) Saint Paul was an advocate of celibacy and he himself advices in his Epistles that it is the right thing for the people who “hear the call”. He himself never married.

2) Priests are supposed to be 100% dedicated to God. A priest has to be ready to give everything that’s worldly to serve God. If Priests get married and have a family, it makes it more difficult for them, given that now they have many other interests and concerns, to serve God to the fullest extent they can.

I suppose you can believe that Jesus never married and that Mary was just a good friend, but then I suppose you can also believe he had blonde hair and blue eyes.

Of course I believe Jesus never got married. What makes you believe he did?

[MannyIsGod]

It's about maintaining the status quo and safeguarding power.

And therein, lies my problem with organized religion.

[smeagol]

I'm aware of the history of the modern Bible.

If you are aware of the history of the Bible, than you must know that scholars generally believe that the Gospel of Mary Magdalene was written in the mid to late second century. That’s more than 150 years after Christ died. So when you say it’s authentic . . .

The book of Mary Magdalene in particular is rarely disputed as authentic (albeit incomplete),

. . . I’m not sure what you are referring too.

. . .and has been known about for ages, but was not included

It was not included because the Church does not believe it authentic.

It is true that the Catholic bible does include more of these texts than most Protestant bibles - but more than mere inclusion in publication, it is also an issue as to which of the books are actually studied and taught amongst laymen.

The Catholic Bible includes all the Old Testament Apocrypha but two books. It does not include any of the New Testament Apocrypha because it believes most of them are simply forgeries.

It's about maintaining the status quo and safeguarding power.

You are speculating. There is no way to know if this is true or not.

[Guru of Nothing]

You are speculating. There is no way to know if this is true or not.

Well, as long as she faith in it in what she believes, it does not matter if she is speculating.

[smeagol]

Well, as long as she faith in it in what she believes, it does not matter if she is speculating.

I did not say this is a problem. I only said she is speculating, which means she could be right, but she could also be wrong.

[scott]

I smell "the God Thread Part 3" brewing...

[smeagol]

I smell "the God Thread Part 3" brewing...

Best thread of all times. But without MFD and others, it will never live up to the standards set by the original.

[Guru of Nothing]

I only said she is speculating, which means she could be right, but she could also be wrong.

You realize this applies to you, and your beliefs, as well.

You don't call it FAITH for nothing.

[JoeChalupa]

I'm keepin' the Faith.

[Guru of Nothing]

I smell "the God Thread Part 3" brewing...

Nah, The God Thread is too much of a moving target. I lose interest somwhere between "offshoot" references and "idol worship" barbs.

I've learned that you cannot debate/discuss religion with Christians, because everytime a salient point is presented, it suddenly becomes "Well, that's what other Christians believe - not me."

Again, moving target - from those who seem to understand "absolute" morality.

For the record, I have only one God before me - Irony.

[smeagol]

I've learned that you cannot debate/discuss religion with Christians, because everytime a salient point is presented, it suddenly becomes "Well, that's what other Christians believe - not me."

That's because different Christian denominations have different interpretations of the Bible.

It's unfortunate, but it's a fact. But most denominations agree on the basics.

[MannyIsGod]

That's because different Christian denominations have different interpretations of the Bible.

It's unfortunate, but it's a fact. But most denominations agree on the basics.

And when that is brought up to prove the "looseness" of the bible itself, it always turns into "they have it wrong, not us".

[Guru of Nothing]

It's unfortunate, but it's a fact. But most denominations agree on the basics.

AU CONTRAIRE!!

Acceptance into a Christian heaven based upon faith vs. deeds is a huge bone of contention betwixt Catholics and Protestants.

Just recently, here in my locale (as reported by Exstatic), a government- subsidized Protestant-based adoption agency denied Catholic applications because of their religious beliefs.

So, no, Catholics and Protestants do not agree on the "basics."

[smeagol]

And when that is brought up to prove the "looseness" of the bible itself, it always turns into "they have it wrong, not us".

That's true, they are wrong!

[smeagol]

AU CONTRAIRE!!

Acceptance into a Christian heaven based upon faith vs. deeds is a huge bone of contention betwixt Catholics and Protestants.

Just recently, here in my locale (as reported by Exstatic), a government- subsidized Protestant-based adoption agency denied Catholic applications based upon their religious beliefs.

So, no, Catholics and Protestants do not agree on the "basics."

True, that's a biggie between Catholics and Protestants.

[Guru of Nothing]

That's true, they are wrong!

Care to identify THEY?

Didn't think so.

[smeagol]

Care to identify THEY?

Didn't think so.

Anybody that does not think like me?

[Guru of Nothing]

Anybody that does not think like me?

Just like MFD.

[Guru of Nothing]

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (2 members and 0 guests)
Guru of Nothing, jochhejaam

Care to jump in and present a unified Christian voice?

Didn't think so.

[Spurminator]

Well, , if it has to be so cut and dry all the time why discuss anything?

Christians are no different than Republicans, Democrats, basketball fans or Trekkies.


Edit: I guess that's not a glowing endorsement either. But you see my point. Unified fronts are rare. Particularly when they involve millions of people and thousands of years.

[Guru of Nothing]

Well, , if it has to be so cut and dry all the time why discuss anything?

Christians are no different than Republicans, Democrats, basketball fans or Trekkies.

Enter the good cop.

Seriously, so long as people insist upon imposing their values and beliefs upon others, it's reasonable to expect cut-and-dry explanations.

[Guru of Nothing]

Well, , if it has to be so cut and dry all the time why discuss anything?

Christians are no different than Republicans, Democrats, basketball fans or Trekkies.


Edit: I guess that's not a glowing endorsement either. But you see my point. Unified fronts are rare. Particularly when they involve millions of people and thousands of years.

Also consider, I am not discussing who gets the corner office; I am talking about eternal salvation.

That is significant.

[smeagol]

Just like MFD.

Hope that the spinning smile gave away the fact I was joking.

I'm nothing like MFD. For starters I don't know the Bible by heart