QuoteOriginally Posted by lopez
must re-check the big red book so,
i cant see the C.O.E or Rom Cath having a problem with mary seeing some action later in life as after all she was a married woman
I think we're alright here too. I'm a believer myself in the big man upstairs but I can also understand those that don't. My f-in-l comes out with the best line for door-to-door religious salespersons: Who created your God?It's just that things like evolution and a universe as complex as ours coming from sterility make even less sense than the presence of a higher (unseen and unknown) being. After all dogs lie around all day sniffing each other's ar*es without a clue about the huge knowledge that humans possess.
One of the main pillars of the 'Paisley' style churches, I believe, is the need to be 'born again.' Not an expert on this but it's got something to do with predestination, where life is all worked out in the spiritual context and good deeds count for nothing. Therefore the need to repent once more. I remember vaguely that a Dutch Catholic cleric of the 17C by the surname of Jansen was involved in this theory, but little else.
Father WW: I think it's not the virgin birth that seperates RC and CoE/I but whether Mary kept her cherry for the rest of her life.
This is the cooooooooooooolest footy forum I've ever seen!
must re-check the big red book so,
i cant see the C.O.E or Rom Cath having a problem with mary seeing some action later in life as after all she was a married woman
I know, my point was that Protestantism is much more of an individual interpretation of the Bible, rather than a specific set of beliefs and rules set by a hierarchy.
Again, that was my point. Protestatism is a loose, catchall term to describe a myriad of Churches, sects and particular beliefs based on the Bible.
Catholicism (including the Coptic and Orthodox versions), Hinduism, Islam (including Sunni, Shia etc), are much more monolithic, and broadly structured Churches. The fact that individuals within these Churches take a different line doesn't make them similar in structure to Protestant Churces. A Billy Graham or Paisley type figure could not exist within Catholicism, Hinduism or Islam, but there is scope for people to hold "controversial" views, whilst remaining within the fold.
Sadly Father, I've a confession to make. My childhood visits to the house of God were very limited (very limited to nothing) as my parents were, ahem, lapsed RCs. In fact, my unorthodox views on the church almost put a spanner in the works re Conchita when we first met (e.g: Mary and her cherry; Priests marrying; democracy in the church, the whore of Rome) that she thought I wasmust re-check the big red book so,
i cant see the C.O.E or Rom Cath having a problem with mary seeing some action later in life as after all she was a married womana Prod. Anyway, she has always maintained that Mary was pure to the end. I think this is why Mary managed to do a bit of a European tour in the late 19 and early 20 centuries.
But I digress, I've sought a rapprochement with the Church since those initial days you'll be pleased to hear, even participating in the poppadom and port...much to the disappointment of my parents.
This is the cooooooooooooolest footy forum I've ever seen!
Where did Jesus' brother come from, then?
Derry.
Same place as the big man himself....!
Now that's news to me
Pity he doesnt play for the Candystripes then. Youre gonna need a miracle to stay up!Derry.
Same place as the big man himself....!
And jesus did have a brother wasnt he called James or John?
Came up with this. I saw a documentary about Jesus' brother last easter on TV. Very interesting it was too.
was James really Jesus’ brother?
The point of departure for considering this question is Mark 6:3 (cf. Matthew 13:55-56), where James is actually named as Jesus’ brother, along with four other men; at least two unnamed and unenumerated sisters are also mentioned. Until recently, Roman Catholic opinion has been dominated by the position of St. Jerome (in his controversial work, Against Helvidius), who argued that although "brothers" and "sisters" are the terms used in Greek, the reference is actually to cousins. Dispute has focused on the issue of whether that view can be sustained linguistically, and on the whole the finding has been negative. Before Jerome, Helvidius himself had maintained during the fourth century that the brothers and sisters were just what their name implies—siblings of Jesus: although he had been born of a virgin, their father was Joseph and their mother was Mary. That view clearly played havoc with the emerging doctrine of Mary’s virginity after Jesus’ birth, and that issue occupied the center of attention. In a recent work which received the Imprimatur, John P. Meier has endorsed the Helvidian theory, to some extent on the basis of support from second century Fathers.10 During that century, a group referred to as the Ebionites even denied Jesus’ virgin birth in the technical sense; his "brothers" and "sisters" were implicitly that in the full sense of those words (see Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.26.1-2).
Richard Bauckham has given new currency to the view of Jesus’ relationship to James developed by Epiphanius during the fourth century (Panarion 1.29.3-4; 2.66.19; 3.78.7, 9, 13), and supported by the second-century Protoevanglium of James 9.2 and perhaps the Gospel of Peter (according to Origen’s Commentary on Matthew 10:17):11 Mary was Jesus’ mother, not James’, since Joseph had a wife prior to his marriage to Mary. Joseph’s relatively advanced age is traditionally held to account for his early departure from the narrative scene of the Gospels, and that reasonable inference lends support to this theory, while James’ emphasis on the Davidic identity of the Church (see Acts 15:16) is easily accommodated on this view. James’ seniority relative to Jesus might be reflected in the parable of the prodigal (Luke 15:11-32). The story of those with Jesus seizing him in the midst of exorcism (Mark 3:21; cf. 3:31-35) reflects the kind of almost parental concern an older brother might feel for a younger brother.
Another, more pragmatic consideration provides support for Epiphanius’ theory, although in a modified form. As mentioned, Joseph disappears from the scene of the Gospels from when Jesus was about twelve years old. His death at that time has been the traditional surmise, and such a chronology has implications for understanding Jesus’ relationships with his siblings. On the Helvidian view, Mary must have given birth to at least seven children in twelve years (Jesus, his brothers, and two or more sisters). Assuming that not every child she gave birth to survived infancy, more than seven labors would be required during that period, all this within a culture that confined women after childbirth and prohibited intercourse with a woman with a flow of blood, and despite the acknowledged prophylactic effect of lactation and Joseph’s age.
Although the consideration of a likely rate of fertility provides some support to the Epiphanian theory, in its unadulterated form it strains credulity in its own way. A widower with at least six children already in tow is not perhaps the best candidate for marriage with a young bride. A modified form of the theory (a hybrid with Helvidius’ suggestion) would make James and Joses the products of Joseph’s previous marriage, and Jesus, Simon and Judah the sons of Joseph with Mary. The latter three sons have names notably associated with a zealous regard for the honor of Israel, and may reflect the taste of a common mother. Absent their names, or even a count of how many were involved, no such assignment of marriages can be attempted for Jesus’ sisters.
On the Helvidian view, James was Jesus’ younger and full brother, in a family quickly produced whose siblings were close in age. On the Epiphanian view, James was older, and Jesus’ half brother, it seems to me that, suitably modified, Epiphanius provides the more plausible finding.
Ya‘aqov, Anglicised as James apparently...
If you attack me with stupidity, I'll be forced to defend myself with sarcasm.
I think we have our first contradiction between the RC church and the good book.
This is the cooooooooooooolest footy forum I've ever seen!
The RC church ignores many things that are in the bible. THE RC church disproves of homosexuality because it is mentioned as a sin in the bible. From the very same book however (Leviticus?) the eating of Pork is not allowed. (The reason why Jews see it as not allowed). THE RC cherry picks its own rules and laws as well. The same book i believe outlaws the eating of many different kinds of sea-creatures (oysters & shrimps) and eagles.I think we have our first contradiction between the RC church and the good book.
Jews dont not just eat pork, other food is not kosher to them as well. Which means really that bible believing christians shouldnt eat it either.
lots of passages from the bible metioned by eoinh there but the bible was not written till i think 400 yrs after jesus died and also it only picked writtings that they saw fit and without getting into conspiracy theories left out writtings that alluded to jesus being married etc personaly i belive in god and was raised a r.c but i think the church has lied to us too much over the years and any orgaisation that is against protective sex in africa when hiv/aids is rife needs some serious thinking to do
save the sheep shaggers bring back beheadings for waherford
Insects are a no-no aswell and Muslims follow the same line. One story I remember was of a massive nose-bag laid on for Prince Nasseem and his hangers-on, but he couldn't touch a thing as it was ham and prawns (the ham for the hangers on, the prawns for Nasseem). Another angle on food is the Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions. They claim that St. Paul in Acts (??) said that all food was now kosher except blood (a clear question about food from a follower) but his response that one should 'abstain' from blood is interpreted that blood transfusions are a no-no by the JWs.
I think one man's cherry picking is another's interpretation. That's what organised religion's all about. Just like 'brother' meaning cousin (not ununusual there. My Zimbabwean mate has loads of 'brothers' that I'd call cousins) or maybe good friend or fellow biblical trade unionist. You name it. We could all be 'brothers and sisters' on this forum if the hat is to fit.
This is the cooooooooooooolest footy forum I've ever seen!
It's a fairly safe and accepted view these days that James was Jesus' brother.
The Born Again reference isn't a protestant fiction, but is taken from the gospels. The words 'Born Again' seem stuck with a particularly American style of Evangelism, as made popular by the fifties super-evangelist Billy Graham, but are actually more of a part of mainstream low key christianity than many might think.
The current Catholic church sticks to some views that seem rapidly out of step with modern thinking, and indeed soemtimes just plain wrong (Such as condom use in the 3rd world). On the plus side, their views on thumbscrews and burning at the stake have come on leaps and bounds in recent years.In all sincerity, it is to be hoped that with the passing of time, and by petetion and prayer, they may yet soften their views on some of these views, without necessarily compromising their integrity.
Oh yes, and a friend of mine insists Jesus was Italian: He thought his mother was a virgin and she thought he was God.
Last edited by green goblin; 04/01/2005 at 2:23 PM. Reason: spelling. again.
Tea. Corduroy. Space Travel.
Surely that'd make him Irish?Oh yes, and a friend of mine insists Jesus was Italian: He thought his mother was a virgin and she thought he was God.
If you attack me with stupidity, I'll be forced to defend myself with sarcasm.
Jesus was Black, surelySurely that'd make him Irish?
(a) He was dark skinned
(b) He went round calling everybody "brother"
and
(C) He didnt get a fair trial.
Baaaaadooooom...ching!
Don't forget your coat on the way out.
This is the cooooooooooooolest footy forum I've ever seen!
Ahh Eoinh you have dissapointed me.
Saw most likely the same show last Easter. Even point they made was preceeded with "could have been", "might be", "not too much of a strech to say" etc
IMO Human beings are falliable and hence dont quite get Gods messages, be they the people who took them down or the people who read them.
Then again thats better than Paisley & Co. who write their own scripture and versions of the bible!
Oh no not them again
religion has caused the deaths of more people through out the years that any other event or war
save the sheep shaggers bring back beheadings for waherford
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks