Judeo-Christian wackiness

[CanuckMA]

That is possible. However, as I understood it, Mary's parents were Joachim (Heli) and Anna. Joachim was a decendent of Davids as well, thus "fullfilling the scriptures" any way you look at it, if you buy this explaination anyways.

Mary's lineage is irrelevant. Lineage is through the father.

Which brings the conumdrum:

1) Jesus is he son of G-d, therefore not of the line of David
2) Jesus is of the line of David through Joseph, therefore not the son of G-d

 

[Rich Parsons]

Your Hallachic (Legal status) as a Jew is through the mother. Lineage (or tribal affiliation) is through the father.

By Legal status do you mean the heritage or religion?

Or something else?

 

[CanuckMA]

By Legal status do you mean the heritage or religion?

Or something else?

It's complicated.

Hallacha is the term used for the body of Jewish law).

So you are considered a Jew according to Hallacha if your mother is Jewish, or you convert.

You must be Jewish to practice Judaism. You can be Jewish and NOT practice Judaism.

So
1) if both your parents are Jewish, your Hallachic status as a Jew comes from your mother, and your tribal affiliation comes from your father.

2) If only your mother is Jewish, or you converted, you are a Hallachic Jew, but have not tribal affiliation.

3) If only your father is Jewish, and you did not convert, you are NOT Jewish.


and in the case of 1 and 2, the religion you practice may or may not be Judaism.

That's the simple, easy part of Jewish law.

Now do you still wonder why so many of us are lawyers??

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Reminder

When engaged in the discussion of a hot/sensitive or otherwise emotionally charged topic, please refer to the following thread for allowable guidelines.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14456

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Thank you,
The Management

 

[loki09789]

The Synoptics were chosen as 'canonical' with the Council of Nicea in 330 CE. Before that time, there is absolutely no evidence that 'the early church' prescribed to those as being the most authoritative --- in fact, Gnostic teachings by individuals such as Marcion, Basilides, and Valentinus were exponentially more popular and widespread than the so-called 'canonical' texts. The 'canonical' texts didn't seem to have much precedence outside of Rome --- which, I suspect, is the reason they were ultimately chosen.

This, of course, begs the question as to just how close our Synoptics are to the ones canonized in 330 CE. It is already a well-known fact that Mark (the only Gospel containing the Resurrection scene) did not contain the Ressurection scene in its earliest extant forms. These were added in later. Who knows how many elements in our current Synoptics were later additions, or how much of the original were excised in those early days??

(The actual post-Crucifixion teachings of Mark's Jesus are found in the Secret Gospel of Mark, a Gnostic text. The original Mark, as far as we can tell, ends with the disciples witnessing the empty tomb in awe. There is clearly some precedence for the Secret Gospel here.)
.

Constantine was a political ruler who converted to Christianity, whether conscious of it or not, the canonized gospels all fall in line with the favorable party line of the day - much like the King James version of the bible 'pleased' the King (James obviously) - and was partially and attempt by the earthly leader (Constantine) to be the "one ruler" both divinely/earthly royal. By doing this Constantine was trying to usurped the popularity and support of 'heretical' Christians (Gnostics) and create an early version of 'centralized/federal government' in the form of making a governmentally approved religious view. This gave Constantine religious and political/legal justification to take out any groups who disagreed and nip rebellions in the bud.

The attempts of Vatican II were to return to a version of (again approved by a council of like minded types ) the pre-political Universal church that recognized the spirit and personal relationship of Catholics was as/if not more important than observances of customs and rituals. An example is the shift in language from "Confession" to "Reconcilliation." In the early modern "Pay, Pray and Obey" mentallity "confession was about spewing all your bad things out and receiving penance that was piped through the priest (Christa in Persona) from God. In the shift to Reconcilliation, it is really about how the individual understands what was 'wrong' and how to grow from it spiritually. It also emphasises the Scriptual idea of reconciling with any parties that you have wronged or have a problem with as part of the process of Reconcilling with God. It is really a beautiful growth experience with the right mind/spirit of the person. Heck, the priest even talks to you like a human being! If anything that is an improvement.

It is hard to get a "literal" take on a body of texts that has been interpretted how many times? By how many people? With how many personal, political and professional agendas? The spirit may be divine, but the flesh is weak....

 

[loki09789]

Sorry for posting after that Blab but something else:

Generally speaking, for Catholics, priests taking theology are trained that the material of the old testament pre-Abram (Abraham) is probably mythical. Abram-post Abraham (through the New testament) is accepted as having some historical accuracy/substance. The most important thing for Catholics isn't the literal interpretation as Tulisan has already mentioned but the verification of Jesus as the Christ/Messiah, finding supporting texts that justify the 7 sacraments as holy and the ultimate goals/teachings of Jesus according to the Scriptures. Under Vatican II the confusion is that a personal relationship is encouraged - as long as you tow the line of canon law . Guess it really comes down to "Faith in Works" for me personally.

 

[heretic888]

Just to bring up a point, since I don't want to ruin your one sided thread.

One-sided, my ****.

Different viewpoints have been expressed: my Gnostic/Docetic position, Paul and Loki's "Liberal Catholic" position, Canuck's position concerning Jewish Law, and Someguy's "pseudo-agnostic" position.

Then again, if you only see the world in black and white (or, in this case, 'true Christians' and 'everybody else'), it would probably seem one-sided.

Don't think that just because nobody has championed your particular viewpoint yet (by and large because we are talking about historical subtleties, and your uber-literalist position is pretty much devoid of any historical basis or proof), that the discussion is being 'one-sided'.

Cross cousins does not mean incest. It's ok to have 5th and 6th cousins marry. Just not 1st-4th.

Depends on your definition of 'incest' --- you'll find in anthropology that, while all cultures have some kind of definition regarding what incest is, the actual definitions themselves vary wildly. Regardless, most cultures do allow cross-cousin marriage.

Your Hallachic (Legal status) as a Jew is through the mother. Lineage (or tribal affiliation) is through the father.

Thanks for the clarification, Canuck!! :asian:

Of course, this still brings us back to the dilemma for the Christian believer:
1) Jesus was born of a Virgin, and is not of the Line of David, or
2) Jesus was not born of a Virgin, and is of the Line of David.

This is one of the many reasons I don't look upon the New Testament (or the Bible as a whole) as being a particularly "historical" document --- although, I freely admit it has innumerable other values and worth.

Constantine was a political ruler who converted to Christianity, whether conscious of it or not, the canonized gospels all fall in line with the favorable party line of the day - much like the King James version of the bible 'pleased' the King (James obviously) - and was partially and attempt by the earthly leader (Constantine) to be the "one ruler" both divinely/earthly royal. By doing this Constantine was trying to usurped the popularity and support of 'heretical' Christians (Gnostics) and create an early version of 'centralized/federal government' in the form of making a governmentally approved religious view. This gave Constantine religious and political/legal justification to take out any groups who disagreed and nip rebellions in the bud.

I agree completely.

I have found very little evidence that the Four Synoptics were of any particular relevance to the early (pre-4th century) Christian community on the whole. Only a handful of Christian leaders every reference them (prior to the 3rd century, only Irenaeus and Tertullian do so in a non-dubious manner*), and they are always without exception centered in Rome. The most popular, pervasive, and widespread schools of Christianity were, without doubt, the Marcionite and Valentinian (as even their critics acknowledge) --- Marcion and Valentinus were also the first Christian leaders to draw upon Paul's letters to any substantive degree (Justin Martyr seems completely ignorant of Paul).

* (It should be noted that other, earlier Christian leaders do refer to Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. However, these are always done so in a dubious fashion, such as Papias' "Matthew" being described as little more than a "collection of oracles", indicating that even if it does have a relation to our Matthew, it is clearly not in the form we possess now.

The problem is further confounded when we acknowledge that virtually all of these early Christian leaders [Papias, Ignatius, Polycarp, etc] are used rather disingenously by late 2nd century apologetics like Irenaeus and Tertullian, and their letters were even further edited and revised during the 4th and 5th centuries, as well.

Thus, all in all, these individuals are not very reliable sources in regards to tracing the historicity of the Synoptics.)

The attempts of Vatican II were to return to a version of (again approved by a council of like minded types ) the pre-political Universal church

I think the major problem with that, although noble, approach is that the "pre-political" Christian community was not very universal or catholic at all. The various and divergent Gnostic schools were by far the most widespread and pervasive, not the literalist schools in Rome. The problem is further confounded if we include the Jewish/Ebonite schools popular around Jerusalem.

The very sad historical truth is that Christianity became unified or catholicized only with the political purges at the behest of Constantine. Before that time, Christianity was FAR more diverse then that it even is today.

It is hard to get a "literal" take on a body of texts that has been interpretted how many times? By how many people? With how many personal, political and professional agendas? The spirit may be divine, but the flesh is weak....

Indeed. And it gets even worse when we know as a historical fact that "our" Gospels (including both the Synoptics and the Pauline letters) have been added to and edited time and time again. I mentioned the Resurrection scene added to Mark --- this is not the only example of such changes (with Paul's earliest letters, such as Galatians and Corinthians, seeing the most radical changes). It becomes a truly daunting task to even consider wading through all this mess to attempt to come to the "original intentions" of the authors (whomever they may be).

Generally speaking, for Catholics, priests taking theology are trained that the material of the old testament pre-Abram (Abraham) is probably mythical.

I'm guessing that's one of the reasons the Catholic Church has officially recognized the theory of evolution as "reality".

Laterz.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Just a little comment to stir the pot a little. The truth is virgin pregnancies happen all the time. It simply means the hyman remains unbroken, and can be swam past.
Sean

 

[heretic888]

Just a little comment to stir the pot a little. The truth is virgin pregnancies happen all the time. It simply means the hyman remains unbroken, and can be swam past.

Heh. Somehow I don't think that's what the Gospel authors quite had in mind, TOD --- especially considering a similar tale of "virgin birth" is found in Euripides' Bacchae with the god-man Dionysus.

Come to think of it, a lotta the Gospel stuff seems to have been "borrowed" from the Bacchae.....

 

[Touch Of Death]

Heh. Somehow I don't think that's what the Gospel authors quite had in mind, TOD --- especially considering a similar tale of "virgin birth" is found in Euripides' Bacchae with the god-man Dionysus.

Come to think of it, a lotta the Gospel stuff seems to have been "borrowed" from the Bacchae.....

Exactly, The words Jesus' trimphant return literaly mean Jesus will be just like Dionysus.
Sean

 

[xianshino]

Any Rush fans out there??

 

[Cruentus]

Um...not me dude!

 

[Touch Of Death]

Any Rush fans out there??

Absolutly, he is an excellent example of a functioning drug addict, and an inspiration for us all :uhyeah: .
Sean

 

[xianshino]

Absolutly, he is an excellent example of a functioning drug addict, and an inspiration for us all :uhyeah: .
Sean

Not fat Rush, I meant the band Rush!!!!!
They have alot of mythology and collections of writings such as Ayn Rand in their music.
There is a song that mentions Dionysus..
just wondering cause I'm a huge Rush fan! :boing2:

 

[CanuckMA]

Not fat Rush, I meant the band Rush!!!!!
They have alot of mythology and collections of writings such as Ayn Rand in their music.
There is a song that mentions Dionysus..
just wondering cause I'm a huge Rush fan! :boing2:

Absolutely!!!

great Canadian band. Of course the lead signer sounds like his shorts are on too tight

 

[xianshino]

Absolutely!!!

great Canadian band. Of course the lead signer sounds like his shorts are on too tight

LOL!! It's definately an acquired taste as far as his voice is concerned.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Not fat Rush, I meant the band Rush!!!!!
They have alot of mythology and collections of writings such as Ayn Rand in their music.
There is a song that mentions Dionysus..
just wondering cause I'm a huge Rush fan! :boing2:

I just loved the, "Carress of Steel" album( I listen to it all the time and its the only Rush I own) but outside of that... No I don't like the rock band Rush either. :asian:
Sean

 

[xianshino]

I just loved the, "Carress of Steel" album( I listen to it all the time and its the only Rush I own) but outside of that... No I don't like the rock band Rush either. :asian:
Sean

Seeing as since Caress of Steel is one of their least popular albums out of the 20+ studio albums recorded, you should probably pick up Hemispheres or Moving Pictures. :ultracool

 

[heretic888]

Exactly, The words Jesus' trimphant return literaly mean Jesus will be just like Dionysus.

Riding on a donkey into the holy city, no less?? Oh wait... that's in there, too!! :uhyeah:

To those interested, you really might want to take a read of the Bacchae to see some of the very interesting parallels yourself --- the scenes concerning Dionysus changing water into wine at a wedding, and of his Transfiguration on a mountain are very provocative.

They have alot of mythology and collections of writings such as Ayn Rand in their music.

Hrmmm.... very interesting.

Laterz.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Seeing as since Caress of Steel is one of their least popular albums out of the 20+ studio albums recorded, you should probably pick up Hemispheres or Moving Pictures. :ultracool

Actualy they were moving in a direction I was very intrigued by, and the abandonded that direction because it was just me. :asian:
Sean