This is a good example of how the early church ingratiated itself with Rome.
There is a crack in everything,
That's how the light gets in...
Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods
ingliz wrote:On divorce.
At the beginning the Creator made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.
The person who can marry should accept this teaching about marriage.
Those who can marry...
“Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” (Matthew 19:8-9)
10 The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” (Matthew 19:10)
11 But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.” (Matthew 19:11-12)
But wherefore does He set forth this parable in the person of the virgins, and does not merely suppose any person whatever? Great things had He spoken of virginity, saying, There are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of Heaven's sake; and, He that is able to receive, let him receive it (Matthew 19:12). He knew also that the generality of men would have a great opinion of it. For indeed the work is by nature great, and is shown so by this, that neither under the old dispensation was it fulfilled by these ancient and holy men, nor under the new was it brought under the compulsion of the law. For He did not command this, but left it to the choice of his hearers. Wherefore Paul also said Now, concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord (1 Corinthians 7:25). For though I praise him that attains thereto, yet I constrain not him that is not willing, neither do I make the thing an injunction
Jewish tradition forbids marriage to a man who has been forcibly emasculated but it is not prohibited for men who were born without visible testicles (conditions including cryptorchidism), or without a visible penis (conditions including hermaphroditism*).
If a man who can marry reaches twenty and has not married, he is considered cursed by God.
* Catholicism follows Jewish practice.
1618 Christ is the center of all Christian life. The bond with him takes precedence over all other bonds, familial or social. 113 From the very beginning of the Church there have been men and women who have renounced the great good of marriage to follow the Lamb wherever he goes, to be intent on the things of the Lord, to seek to please him, and to go out to meet the Bridegroom who is coming. 114 Christ himself has invited certain persons to follow him in this way of life, of which he remains the model:
"For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it." 115
1619 Virginity for the sake of the kingdom of heaven is an unfolding of baptismal grace, a powerful sign of the supremacy of the bond with Christ and of the ardent expectation of his return, a sign which also recalls that marriage is a reality of this present age which is passing away. 116
Pants-of-dog wrote:As each Gospel was created, we see Pilate’s role in the crucifixion reduced, and the Jews are increasingly portrayed as the actual killers of Christ.
This is a good example of how the early church ingratiated itself with Rome.
From then on, practicing Jews paid the tax while Christians did not, providing hard evidence of an official distinction. Part of the Roman disdain for Christianity, then, arose in large part from the sense that it was bad for society. In the 3rd century, the Neoplatonist philosopher Porphyry wrote:
How can people not be in every way impious and atheistic who have apostatized from the customs of our ancestors through which every nation and city is sustained? ... What else are they than fighters against God?
Once distinguished from Judaism, Christianity was no longer seen as simply a bizarre sect of an old and venerable religion; it was a superstitio.:
Verv wrote:Catholicism does not follow Jewish practices on this
eunuchs who have been so from birth... [In practice with caveats*] Catholicism follows Jewish practice.
your positions are a very novel
turn[ing] the Gospel into a circus.
Verv wrote:If you believe the history itself, the Jews persecuted the Christians, hence the Christians wrote about themselves being persecuted by the Jews, and as the Christians could not influence Rome in any way about this for a very long time, saying that the hated Christians endeared themselves to the Romans by hating Jews (who received an exemption), is nonsense.
It falls very much away from common interpretations.
Your statements just sound like a stab in the dark toward Christians.
Pants-of-dog wrote:No. The Jews did not persecute the Christians. That is simply incorrect.
14 At Iconium Paul and Barnabas went as usual into the Jewish synagogue. There they spoke so effectively that a great number of Jews and Greeks believed. 2 But the Jews who refused to believe stirred up the other Gentiles and poisoned their minds against the brothers.
51 “You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit! 52 Was there ever a prophet your ancestors did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him— 53 you who have received the law that was given through angels but have not obeyed it.”
54 When the members of the Sanhedrin heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him. 55 But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56 “Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”
57 At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, 58 dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their coats at the feet of a young man named Saul.
59 While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” 60 Then he fell on his knees and cried out, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” When he had said this, he fell asleep.
If you think that was evidence of Jewish persecution of Christians, you are wrong.
Verv wrote:St. Paul claims to have persecuted Christians himself. This is something everyone acknowledges.
Moreover, you can see in places like Acts 14 that Jews and Romans worked together to persecute Christians in Iconium, with the Jews specifically leading the charge:
And what of the stoning of St. Stephen the Protomartyr by the Jews?
I am not an expert in these accounts, but I am pretty sure that these sorts of accusations and records continue on.
It was intended to be evidence that the Romans specifically despised Christians and considered them separate, and that your unsubstantiated narrative which you gave no historical basis to is further wrong.
Do you want to present some evidence to the contrary?
Pants-of-dog wrote:You mean, when he was a Roman citizen?
Your definition of oppression seems very flexible. All the horrific acts committed by Christians against LGBTQ people is not oppression, but some Jews saying bad things is oppression of Christians.
Thank you for providing another example of how the Jews are portrayed as the villains, and the Romans are let off the hook.
23 Then the whole assembly rose and led him off to Pilate. 2 And they began to accuse him, saying, “We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Messiah, a king.”
3 So Pilate asked Jesus, “Are you the king of the Jews?”
“You have said so,” Jesus replied.
4 Then Pilate announced to the chief priests and the crowd, “I find no basis for a charge against this man.”
5 But they insisted, “He stirs up the people all over Judea by his teaching. He started in Galilee and has come all the way here.”
6 On hearing this, Pilate asked if the man was a Galilean. 7 When he learned that Jesus was under Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who was also in Jerusalem at that time.
It is as if the author wanted to ingratiate his religion with the ruling authority by making the Jews look like a common enemy.
No. Not about St. Stephen anyway. There is no record that he ever existed except in this story.
How does it prove me wrong?
Verv wrote:he persecuted them as a private citizen because he was Jewish.
ingliz wrote:According to wiki, it all depends on which side of the argument you were on at the time.
First century Jews would say they were being disciplined not persecuted.
Early Christianity began as a sect among Second Temple Jews... Jews did not see Christians as clearly separate from their own community until at least the middle of the second century. Thus, acts of Jewish persecution of Christians [from a Jewish perspective] fall within the boundaries of synagogue discipline.
Verv wrote:synagogue discipline? This isn't about 'saying bad things.'
Verv wrote:He was both, correct. However, he persecuted them as a private citizen because he was Jewish.
(a) What horrific acts?
(b) They stoned St. Stephen to death and tried to get other Christians stoned to death. This isn't about 'saying bad things.'
The Romans were initially disinterested because, during the ministry of Christ, He largely did come off as a Jew, and this as a Jewish religious issue. This is also how the Bible portrays it.
He sends him to the local ethnarch because he does not consider it part of his problem. This is an attitude of general indifference, is i tnot?
How so? Pontius Pilate literally sent their Messiah to the ethnarch to be killed. That isn't particularly good.
Moreover, St. Paul is imprisoned, and over the next centuries, many Christians die at the hands of the ROman government during Roman persecution...
It is not very conceivable that the early happenings of a minor religion in its infancy in the classical world would be recorded extensively by outside sources that would then survive.
It's irrational to expect more.
Alright, so you have no evidence that the texts were altered to ingratiate Christians to Rome, right?
The early Christians rejoiced when one of their number was faithful unto death.
2 Corinthinans 11 wrote:Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. 25 Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was pelted with stones, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea, 26 I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my fellow Jews,
ingliz wrote:There must also be heresies among you so that the righteous can be known (1 Corinthians 11:19).
One can see you are not a true believer.
All the Abrahamic religions agree that...
This world is just a passageway, and the life hereafter is the eternal abode.
— Hazrat Ali ibn Abi Talib, fourth of the “rightly guided” caliphs
Surely, if you truly believe you are saving a soul from damnation, from eternal torment in Gehenna, the lake of fire, any persecution/discipline is justified?
For the heretical true believer isn't the disciplinarian is doing you a favour? It is a ticket to heaven (Matt. 16:25). Even if you are not baptised, it is Catholic doctrine that the Baptism of Blood blots out Original Sin, and all actual sin, together with the punishment due to it.
The early Christians rejoiced when one of their number was faithful unto death.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Provide evidence for this claim.
9 Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples. He went to the high priest 2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem
Not in the passage you quoted.
And the death of St. Stephen is mythical. We are discussing historical facts.
This does not contradict the point that the author of this legend was trying to make the Jews look bad to ingratiate himself and other Christians with the Romans.
In the Christian myths, Pilate literally washes his hands of this, and the Jews are blamed.
It is one of the main theological reasons for Christian persecution of Jews.
Yes, and this is one of the reasons why the Christians felt the need to ingratiate themselves with the Romans.
And the fact that the Xina religion becomes the official religion shortly thereafter shows that the early Christians were successful in ingratiating themselves.
It is irrational to believe in the Christian myths, to believe that Christians did not oppress LGBtQ people, and to believe that early Christians were not materially affected by their political situation.
19 “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20 But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
I never claimed that any writings were altered. The oral stories were almost certainly altered, and certain written texts were simply removed in their entirety.
There are no variant readings of the Rig Veda, no critical editions or textual apparatus. Just the Rig Veda. So much for the fluidity of orally transmitted texts. Correspondingly, the expected fixity of written texts dissolves when we look at the history of the reception and transmission of the Mahabharata, another enormous Sanskrit text, but one that was preserved both orally and in manuscript. In contrast with the Rig Veda, this text changed constantly; it is so extremely fluid that there is no single Mahabharata; there are hundreds of Mahabharatas, hundreds of different manuscripts and innumerable oral versions. So much for the fixity of written texts.
Doniger, Wendy. The Hindus (p. 33). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
The oral text of the Rig Veda was therefore memorized in such a way that no physical traces of it could be found, much as a coded espionage message would be memorized and then destroyed (eaten, perhaps—orally destroyed) before it could fall into the hands of the enemy. Its exclusively oral preservation ensured that the Rig Veda could not be misused even in the right hands: you couldn’t take the Rig Veda down off the shelf in a library, for you had to read it in the company of a wise teacher or guru, who would make sure that you understood its application in your life. Thus the Veda was usually passed down from father to son, and the lineages of the schools or “branches” (shakhas) that passed down commentaries “from one to another” (param-para) were often also family lineages, patriarchal lineages (gotras). Those who taught and learned the Rig Veda were therefore invariably male Brahmins in this early period, though later other classes too may have supplied teachers, and from the start those who composed the poems may well have been more miscellaneous, even perhaps including some women, to whom some poems are attributed.
Doniger, Wendy. The Hindus (pp. 105-106). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
Now, one might suppose that a text preserved orally in this way would be subject to steadily encroaching inaccuracy and unreliability, that the message would become increasingly garbled like the message in a game of telephone, but one would be wrong. For the very same sacredness that made it necessary to preserve the Rig Veda orally rather than in writing also demanded that it be preserved with meticulous accuracy. People regarded the Rig Veda as a revealed text, and one does not play fast and loose with revelation. It was memorized in a number of mutually reinforcing ways, including matching physical movements (such as nodding the head) with particular sounds and chanting in a group, which does much to obviate individual slippage.
Doniger, Wendy. The Hindus (p. 106). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
Verv wrote:Christians were persecuted by Jews because they were known to Jews as a departure from religious orthodoxy, and the Romans did not care about internal Jewish squabbles. The average Roman would not have known how to distinguish the two necessarily until later. It was also common for Romans to participate in cults that originate din the East.
Moreover, St. Paul signifies this is the case:
St. Paul was seeking out permission from the High Priest to persecute Christians. No Roman authority involved.
The Bible couns as historical record for this. You can reject this historical record, sure, but then we are talking about a period of history that has little to no information about it, and you are the one gorssly speculating.
I haven't seen you back up any of your claims with a reasonable source.
You did not even know enough about St. Paul to see that in his own recorded words he persecuted Christians on behalf of the Jews.
What's your evidence he was doing that and not relaying the truth of the occurrences?
Your reason is now getting circular:
We know that what happened was a myth; so it was composed to please the Romans... And we know that it was composed to please the Romans because the account couldn't have been true, it'd have been a myth! A myth that took into consideration how to please the Romans.
The Romans who, of course, would go on to persecute Christians for centuries.
People were willing to die and be martyred in part by Romans for a couple centuries because they had faith in the long-game that "We intentionally portrayed Pontius Pilate well and the imprisonment of Paul was downplayed, so, we got this, guys; we'll win this in a couple centuries..." ?
Where did Christians oppress LGBTQ people?
Christians do not believe that being materially affected was important -- just ask Ingliz, we are supposed to seek out martyrodm.
You should check out Wendy Doniger on this:
Point being, if the Gospels and Epistles were largely committed to memory and transmitted orally over vast areas, this would likely serve to solidify them.
If no one has memorized the 20 line poem that I wrote, but all depend on the minimal written texts that are available... I can entirely change the record by destroying the texts and replacing them.
If they have been memorized by a dozen people in a dozen places, it is impossible to change the record unless you can coordiante with them and they agree to do so.
Moreover, because these are the epistles of Paul, we know they were originally written in addition to being memorized. Same with the Gospels.
Verv wrote:EDIT: my response became garbled because of mismatched quote tags and another quote that did not paste, and I could not figure out why before lunch time, so I am effectively deleting it and will fix it after lunch.
You and your establishment nonsense. It is time yo[…]
Eh Rich, you're 4 years late. There's a couple o[…]
@layman , you can hate the bl**dy French all day […]