Religious Knowledge Thread

[Lief Erikson]

Thanks for the compliments, by the way .

[Arien the Maia]

all this talk about Mary Magdalen and Jesus....I have to wonder....Jesus is God..why would God want or need a human companion especially for a sexual relationship? Yes, Jesus was tempted...but He is God...how can God commit a sin? IMO He can't...anything God does is a new rule (so to speak). God does it, so it true? Does that make sense? Since God created everything then whatever he does {i.e. dies, then humans who follow and die will ulitmately go back to where God has gone...heavne...o rin the case of rejecting God...hell like Satan) basically humans can only go to where God has gone first....

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Btw, nice to see this thread come back to life. Especially since my Pentecostal friends gave me a new good-looking bible yesterday. Maybe they still cling to the hope that my atheistic soul isn't lost forever

heehee!!

Ahhhhh, Jonathan, Jonathan ...

[Lief Erikson]

I have a question for Catholics. If Peter was the first Pope, why are Popes supposed to be celibate? Peter was married.

Another question for Catholics. At one point in history, there were three popes alive- the Pope in Avignon and the Pope in Rome. Also, most of the popes in Avignon, according to historians, were appointed with the views of the French kings firmly in mind, during the "Babylonian Captivity". How would Catholics respond to this? Were these popes' statements about doctrine authoritative, even though they were virtual puppets of France?

[Firekitten2006]

I just saw something interesting on Discovery Channel. Just caught the end of it but apparently they are showing this history of Christianity/Jesus. But basically what I saw was they were talking about Mary Magdalene and their point was that she was not a prostitute. She was made to look like one because of some rivalry with Peter. Of course I only caught the very end of it but maybe someone else knows what I'm talking about?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Firekitten2006

I just saw something interesting on Discovery Channel. Just caught the end of it but apparently they are showing this history of Christianity/Jesus. But basically what I saw was they were talking about Mary Magdalene and their point was that she was not a prostitute. She was made to look like one because of some rivalry with Peter. Of course I only caught the very end of it but maybe someone else knows what I'm talking about?

There's nothing in the scripture that says she was a prostitute. I don't know of any evidence that there was rivalry between her and Peter, either. If you have some, I'd be interested to see it.

I do know that women were looked down upon in Israeli male society. They couldn't even give evidence in court, because their opinion was considered to be worthless. My point is that because of the low status of women in that time period and culture, it would have been pretty much impossible for her to rise high enough to become Peter's rival.

Sorry if I'm coming across as suppressive . I just tend to be pretty scornful of the Mary Magdalene - Jesus relationship theory. I've never seen any evidence supporting that idea, and there is a lot of evidence against it- evidence I already posted in a previous debate. The idea that Jesus might have had a sexual relationship with women is very attractive to a lot of people nowadays, even though there is no reason to believe it. Ideas that glorify the position of Mary tend to be ideas intended to provide support for the other belief- but likewise are without evidence. I'm surprised you saw it on the history channel . If they do have any evidence to support this belief, I wonder what it is.

If there was a conflict between Peter and Magdalene, I would have expected to see it in the scriptures. The scriptures were brutally honest about some of the most uncomfortable aspects of Christianity in their time- such as the lack of Jesus' words about circumcision, and about the fact that women were the first to see Jesus resurrected, and shepherds the first to see the mystical aspects of his birth. Shepherds and women were very low in Israelite society. The disciples also were treated like idiots, or at least very slow learners, in the Gospels. The scripture writers plainly were trying to be accurate, or they wouldn't have allowed scorn of their current leaders to slip through. Since the writers of the New Testament plainly were trying to be accurate, I would have expected something about a Jesus-Magdalene sex relationship or a Magdalene-Peter confrontation to come through.

If you or others have evidence for either of these things though, I'd be interested to see it.

[Firekitten2006]

lol I already said that I didnt see all of the show, so I missed most of their argument. I'm not even remotely knowledgeable in the mary magdalene area which is why I was asking about what they were saying on the show.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Firekitten2006

lol I already said that I didnt see all of the show, so I missed most of their argument. I'm not even remotely knowledgeable in the mary magdalene area which is why I was asking about what they were saying on the show.

Okay. Well, I wish I could help you .

[Lotesse]

Mary Magdalenw was the BOMB!! Love that woman, LOVE HER!! She was Jwesus's best friend, you know, his cl,osest friend who was a girl. LOVE HER!!! Yay for Mary Magdalene; behind every great man stands a GREAT WomAN!!!!

[Lotesse]

Mary Magdalen was so called either from Magdala near Tiberias, on the west shore of Galilee, or possibly from a Talmudic expression meaning "curling women's hair," which the Talmud explains as of an adulteress.

In the New Testament she is mentioned among the women who accompanied Christ and ministered to Him (Luke 8:2-3), where it is also said that seven devils had been cast out of her (Mark 16:9). She is next named as standing at the foot of the cross (Mark 15:40; Matthew 27:56; John 19:25; Luke 23:49). She saw Christ laid in the tomb, and she was the first recorded witness of the Resurrection.

The Greek Fathers, as a whole, distinguish the three persons:

the "sinner" of Luke 7:36-50;
the sister of Martha and Lazarus, Luke 10:38-42 and John 11; and
Mary Magdalen.
On the other hand most of the Latins hold that these three were one and the same. Protestant critics, however, believe there were two, if not three, distinct persons. It is impossible to demonstrate the identity of the three; but those commentators undoubtedly go too far who assert, as does Westcott (on John 11:1), "that the identity of Mary with Mary Magdalene is a mere conjecture supported by no direct evidence, and opposed to the general tenour of the gospels." It is the identification of Mary of Bethany with the "sinner" of Luke 7:37, which is most combatted by Protestants. It almost seems as if this reluctance to identify the "sinner" with the sister of Martha were due to a failure to grasp the full significance of the forgiveness of sin. The harmonizing tendencies of so many modern critics, too, are responsible for much of the existing confusion. "

- from the Catholic dictionary

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I have a question for Catholics. If Peter was the first Pope, why are Popes supposed to be celibate? Peter was married.

Another question for Catholics. At one point in history, there were three popes alive- the Pope in Avignon and the Pope in Rome. Also, most of the popes in Avignon, according to historians, were appointed with the views of the French kings firmly in mind, during the "Babylonian Captivity". How would Catholics respond to this? Were these popes' statements about doctrine authoritative, even though they were virtual puppets of France?

Come on, Lief, don't play stupid - if you want to know about these sorts of things, what do you think Internet research tools are for?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

Come on, Lief, don't play stupid - if you want to know about these sorts of things, what do you think Internet research tools are for?

This is what this Internet thread is for also, according to the chap who started the thread.

I definitely agree with you about Mary Magdalene. From scripture, it seems more like he is standing behind her than that she is standing behind him, but she definitely seems to be the closest female friend he had that we know of. It was pretty neat how she was the first to see him resurrected. I think it was quite wonderful of him to always choose those considered worthy of least consideration to show himself to. When he was born, his first witnesses were shepherds. When he was resurrected, his first witnesses were women. Throughout scripture, God almost always chooses what is most worthless in men's eyes and does the most astounding things with it. I love that about his wisdom .

[Arien the Maia]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I have a question for Catholics. If Peter was the first Pope, why are Popes supposed to be celibate? Peter was married.

Another question for Catholics. At one point in history, there were three popes alive- the Pope in Avignon and the Pope in Rome. Also, most of the popes in Avignon, according to historians, were appointed with the views of the French kings firmly in mind, during the "Babylonian Captivity". How would Catholics respond to this? Were these popes' statements about doctrine authoritative, even though they were virtual puppets of France?

celebacy was the tradition adn the preferred way of living for most priests...it was thought that the priest could do a better job of tending to their flock if they didn't also have a family to tend to. interestingly enough, the EAstern rites of the Catholic Church havce married priests. The Pope is a member of the Western (Latin / Roman) rite (In fact he is the Bishop of Rome as well as the Head of the Whole CAtholic Church East and West). It is only in this rite that priest take the vow of celebacy...however if you are ordained a priest in the Eastern rite you cannot then marry...but married men can become priests.

as far as the second question you've asked..well I remember vaguely learning about the Avignon Popes during school but cannot recall much

[inked]

Celibacy is a discipline of the Roman Catholic Tradition. Lots of argument, but it is not a Dominical requirement. See above.

The whole problem of Avignon and the Babylonian Captivity led to the separation of England from the putative authority of the Pope by the Church of England and the re-affirmation of the existing Catholic Church there (which by the way, sent 3 bishops to the Council of Niceae in 325 AD).

So, Henry VIII, the Defender of the Faith (so named by the Pope), really did fulfill his title...just not as the Pope wished!

[Curubethion]

Regarding the "3 popes", that's a slightly inaccurate statement. There has only been one pope, ever. The "pope" in Avignon was actually an antipope: a man with a false claim on the Papacy. Antipopes have no more authority than any other man. The third "pope" was improperly chosen, as there was already a pope. A bunch of bishops just got together and said that Martin V was the Pope and that the current pope was deposed. This had no authority. So, Catholics were only obliged to obey the real pope, not the antipopes.

[Lief Erikson]

Okay. But I'm not aware of there having been any popes in Rome during the Babylonian Captivity. Does that mean that between 1305 and 1378, there was no real pope, but only antipopes?

[Curubethion]

No. Where a pope is has no bearing on his validity. The end of the Babylonian Captivity caused the antipope in Avignon to pop up because all the French cardinals wanted their pope back. Pope Urban wouldn't come back, so they made up their own pope. And he was an antipope.

[inked]

Didn't think this would come up till Passion Week, but...

http://magicstatistics.blogspot.com/...al-begins.html

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

By these standards I dare say there are significantly less christians in the world then one would assume from declaration alone.

That would be correct. The Bible itself also acknowledges this.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Who gets to decide then? I mean here on earth...

No one. Catholics might say the Pope, but I'm not a Catholic, so I say no one. The one who decides is our Counselor, the Holy Spirit. He passes on to us what he hears from God. God knew in advance that we would have a problem of interpreting what is written in the Bible, so when he ascended into heaven, he sent the Holy Spirit down to us. So the Holy Spirit is among us, speaking to us and showing us the correct interpretation of the word.

This doesn't mean we just assume that whatever way we interpret the Bible is right. It means we pray that we actually hear from God, as he instructs us.

[inked]

IR asked (over in the MUSLIM thread):

"Originally Posted by Insidious Rex
By these standards I dare say there are significantly less christians in the world then one would assume from declaration alone.

What are your thoughts on the millions of christians and in fact those entire denomination partitions that hold that its biblically accurate that homosexuality is not a sin and/or that gay marriage is ok? Are they non christians too?"

I said:

Wrong, IR, is the word we use for that. Sorta like, "the fundamentalists in Islam are wrong" like you have said.

IR asked:

"Who gets to decide then? I mean here on earth..."

I note Lief's response above as well but I do disagree with him somewhat.

Apart from the Pope and Roman Catholic Church - which does have an answer in some regards specifically in the POPE, but is not limited to that - that there is Tradition.

Tradition is the teaching of the church universal which interprets the Scripture. It reaches back to Jesus and the disciples through the laity, the deacons, the prieshood, and the bishops. It was an undivided consensus of teaching until the Great Schism in 1054 when the political exigencies and disagreements over the claims of the Roman church led to separation of the Eastern half of the Empire and Western half of the Empire. The teaching in regard to morals was undivided and remained so until the 20th century when the moral heresy (heresy means choosing a teaching not in accord with the teaching of the church universal) was promulgated. At no point in the history of the Eastern or Western church was homosexual behaviour morally acceptable. It is not today.

This Tradition is taught by the laity in what is known as the sensus fidelium, the diaconate (the first order of ordained persons) and the priesthood (the teaching and sacramental ministers and second order of ordained men) and promulgated by the bishops (priests elevated as chief pastor over a geographical region, the third order of ordained ministry). So it is possible to know what has been the teaching of the church in specific matters by examining the history of teaching in general in the church and to find specific teaching regarding moral matters.

What is traceable in an unbroken and continuous line is the moral condemnation of homosexual behaviour from Old Testament teachings in Leviticus and their Jewish understandings, the New Testament teachings in the face of a "open and accepting" world order in this matter, the teachings of the Early Church Fathers, the post-Nicene Fathers, the general councils of the Church Undivided, the teachings of the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the teachings of the Roman Church, the teachings of the Reformed Churches, and the teachings of the Independent Churches. All these sources have taught the same thing in regard to homosexual behaviours.

What is really at issue is on what authority the persons and institutions claiming to be "doing a new thing' - as in the Episcopal Church in the USA, the Anglican Church in Canada, and the various Reformed mainline denominations endorsing homosexual behaviour and gay "marriage" - are acting. (Note that this is entirely separate from the social order or government.

As in matters of Christology and the nature of the Church and the interpretation of Scripture, so in this matter of homosexuality - the test of the teaching is its congruence with the whole church and what has been taught "everywhere, always, and by all" (the Vincentian canon). When a group of individuals (whether laity, deacons, priests, or bishops, and even local councils) have taught differently than the Church Universal, they have been called to account before the reality of the Church Universal. And there have been many disagreements over many things over the years. Some have resulted in differing historical traditions of Christology (as in Arian, Monophysite, Docetic, and other non-universal churches), Church order (the hierarchal, presbyterial, and independent forms), and nature of the Sacraments - all very significant issues.

Interestingly, none of these groups have taught homosexual behaviours as morally appropriate and right though all groups have had antinomians and libertines at various times. What we have then is an enormous consensus of the faithful, consistent teaching by the diaconate and priesthood and bishops, and (for the Roman Catholics) the magisterium posited to be ultimate in the Pope, all speaking with one historical voice on this issue.

In regard to the effects of the Episcopal Church's aberrant decision to ordain a practicing homosexual to the diaconate, priesthood, and bishopric, the Eastern Orthodox and Roman and Independent churches have censured their error. There have been breaks in ecumenical talks and activities, failure of inter-church sacramental recognitions, and constant requests for the ECUSA to correct its error. Within the Anglican Communion itself, with 32 Provinces around the world, 17 Provinces have broken or impaired communion with ECUSA and ACA over the issue.

So, the very short answer, is that the Church Universal has decided this issue in a historical manner traceable over 4000 years.

The question is why does the error persist in the face of the unanimous moral teaching of the Church? The answer is sin. Plain and simple sin of disobedience to the moral teaching of the Church. In this, the errors about homosexual behaviour or heresies of moral teaching and moral theology in general are exalted above the plain sense of Scripture and patristic teaching and consensus of the Church across time and space.

You takes your choice (that is exercise free will) and takes your consequences (here and now, as well as in eternity). One can, however, make the choice informed by the Tradition which is amazingly and unavoidably consistent in this regard, or one can choose among heretical teaching which is clearly at variance from 4000 years of consistent teaching.

Anyway, that's who decides.