Having A Humble Opinion Of Self

[sanctus]

think about at what point the stories were first written down (opposed to oral tradition)?

It was a few hundred years after the fact! The original followers of the doomsday cult thought the world was going to end in their lifetime, so they saw no need to write things down.

Then, once the church began to be formalized, through the councils, the texts were heavily edited and selected.

You can't use the christianized version of the torah, which formed the old testament for a basis for support. You are using the old "use the bible to verify the bible" routine, which is not valid.

Yes, as a Catholic I can use the Old Testament. It forms part of the body of our belief structure. As to writting it down, it seems to me as if you are quibbling. Your point was the doctrine itself was an invention centuries after the fact. My point was that it was not. Even in Oral tradition, as the whole faith was at the time, the doctrine of Mary was already established.

And you're not, as a matter of fact, totally correct as to why the Church began formalizing its belief in what we now call the 72 books of the Bible. It was done when the original Apostles and their immediate successors began dying and the
Church realized the oral body of knowledge might be lost if not preserved in written form.

 

[the caracal kid]

Yes, as a Catholic I can use the Old Testament. It forms part of the body of our belief structure. As to writting it down, it seems to me as if you are quibbling. Your point was the doctrine itself was an invention centuries after the fact. My point was that it was not. Even in Oral tradition, as the whole faith was at the time, the doctrine of Mary was already established.

And you're not, as a matter of fact, totally correct as to why the Church began formalizing its belief in what we now call the 72 books of the Bible. It was done when the original Apostles and their immediate successors began dying and the
Church realized the oral body of knowledge might be lost if not preserved in written form.

yes, you may use the christianized version of the torah. Just don't ask why jewish people would laugh at you!

The fact remains that the 72 books you refer to were voted on 300 years after the supposed life of the jesus character. Some went in, some went out. Editing occured. Translation errors occured. You are looking at the christian book and saying, "look, there it says the tradition began in ..." where I am pointing out that where such claims in the bible are made were written in as a reworking of the history in order to bring it more into line with the pagan belief structures the church wished to overtake.

"Not at all! For us as Christians, we understand and appreciate the connection we hold to all things created by God. We are present as equal creation of an omnipotent God who also offers us the unique gift of fellowship with Him. This is our connection, our interconnectedness if you will."

do you? maybe you do, but it seems the mob christianity adheres to the "dominion" policy. You know, the god over you, you over the animals. The animals and plants are your resources to exploit as needed.

I very seldomly see a christian talk of interconnectedness. Do you see yourself as a part of your god? Being humble should not be bowing before some supposed entity, but in seeing the small part you are in the interconnectedness of the universe, in my view (and as such understanding there is no real separate "you").

 

[sanctus]

yes, you may use the christianized version of the torah. Just don't ask why jewish people would laugh at you!
").

Well, without trying to be rude, since I do profess belief in the Christian faith, why should it concern me if people of other religions "laugh at me" for following the beliefs systems of my faith?

 

[sanctus]

The fact remains that the 72 books you refer to were voted on 300 years after the supposed life of the jesus character. Some went in, some went out. Editing occured. Translation errors occured. ").

That is a myth. No translation errors occured. They were quite careful in their translation of the original texts into Latin. The books you refer to were already written down, that is the point you are missing. They were not written 300 years later. they were codified into one collection, but they existed from the time of the Apostles. Most of the N. T. was a collection of the letters Saint Paul sent to the various churches in the Roman empire.

 

[sanctus]

I very seldomly see a christian talk of interconnectedness. Do you see yourself as a part of your god? Being humble should not be bowing before some supposed entity, but in seeing the small part you are in the interconnectedness of the universe, in my view (and as such understanding there is no real separate "you").

Jesus teaches us that we are a part of God, and all things around us. That was his general conception of the ideology of the "good neighbour". And for us, it is not a "supposed" entity. It is God, the Holy Trinity. He gave us the ability to be in fellowship with him. But like all relationships, there are boundaries which must be recognized. The creation is not, for example, in a position to dictate to the Creator.

 

[Curiosity]

Sanctus

First thank you for your response regarding the "arrival" of Jesus into human form.... I won't give it the title of virgin birth again....I will take days thinking on this one.

Question: Is it part of your priestly work to defend your faith to others who choose to disbelieve?

Is there not a point where you bring your beliefs down to a level where no exposure is necessary - as it is your personal faith not belonging to anyone else?

There must be a perameter of personal issues which do not necessarily have to be shared right? Especially in that they are your own and belong to none other.

It is good we have you here to ask questions of but I feel it goes beyond just questioning and more challenge....

Why should it? People who disbelieve anything are not challenged are they? Agnostics are perfectly willing to give us their ten favs as to why the don't believe.... but that is their choice unasked.

Why do the religious constantly feel the need to defend when had I the satisfaction of your personal devotion, I would not feel the need to explain it to anyone.

 

[sanctus]

Sanctus


Question: Is it part of your priestly work to defend your faith to others who choose to disbelieve?.

Sometimes. In the case of this thread, I am answering questions and comments.

 

[sanctus]

Why do the religious constantly feel the need to defend when had I the satisfaction of your personal devotion, I would not feel the need to explain it to anyone.

I suppose it works from all angles. We might ask "why do the non-believers feel the need to attack when we already know they do not believe"? See, it is a matter of perspective.

 

[sanctus]

Sanctus

First thank you for your response regarding the "arrival" of Jesus into human form.... I won't give it the title of virgin birth again....I will take days thinking on this one..

But why not ascribe to the event the title it is commonly referred to?

 

[Curiosity]

Sanctus

Thank you again - re your last comment on the virgin birth phrase.

I have always felt that to be offensive - if we look at the one who gave birth to us - most of humanity sees their mother with devotion and love. She is obviously no longer a virgin because she gave us life - therefore the term is demeaning to our mothers - our first love.

And even more blatant - it makes the act of creating humans something unworthy to be included in religious doctrine.
That in the eyes of the church - only "virgins" are an acceptable female form.

 

[sanctus]

Sanctus

Thank you again - re your last comment on the virgin birth phrase.

I have always felt that to be offensive - if we look at the one who gave birth to us - most of humanity sees their mother with devotion and love. She is obviously no longer a virgin because she gave us life - therefore the term is demeaning to our mothers - our first love.

And even more blatant - it makes the act of creating humans something unworthy to be included in religious doctrine.
That in the eyes of the church - only "virgins" are an acceptable female form.

That is a very interesting perspective! I consider the
Virgin Birth to be a great honour for Mary, in that she was set aside above all women to bear the Christ. It would seem to me that this would be a blessed moment for her. True, she renounced the normal actions of motherhood, but let me ask you, does she have to have sex to be considered a worthy mother? Are we not just quibbling over the means and how instead of the why?Is it not enough that she bore the Christ? See what I mean.

 

[Curiosity]

Dear Sanctus

Yes we are quibbling over virgins. In the eyes of the church celibacy is the only accepted lifestyle for servants within the church is it not?

Yet while obligations of celibacy are expected to be met by some, large families are advised for those within marriage. And I agree if there was such a "birth" for Mary while it is an honor, it also places a
lesser value on all females who give birth as we know it to be. The story seems more of a fantastic tale
dreamed up to accommodate the church's wishes for celibacy among its staff. But that is me translating
into modern terminology. I have no idea what it was over 2000 years ago.

I know religion does not focus on sexual matters entirely but the quixotic references to human needs seem at odds. Great human misery has had sexuality and sexuality denied as well as guilt at the core of many of life's problems. The answer from the church is "to overcome". Which I find odd in that one of life's and nature's driving forces - perpetuation of the species is to be "overcome".

 

[sanctus]

core of many of life's problems. The answer from the church is "to overcome". Which I find odd in that one of life's and nature's driving forces - perpetuation of the species is to be "overcome".

I enjoy your comments, by the way. Very insightful. As to celibacy, it may surprise you to learn that celibacy was only enforced on the clergy after 1,000 years of the life of the Church. Indeed, it is a myth that all Catholic priests are celibate! Bet that surprises you. The Church has 22-23 Rites(jurisidictions if you prefer). The largest, the one we are most familiar with, is entitled the Latin Rite. However, each Rite, all under the Pope, follows it own liturgical customs. Many of the Rites of the Church allow for a married priesthood. In other words, a man will be ordained in the state he is in at the time of his ordination, after the Eastern traditions. Good examples are the Ukranian Catholic Rite and the Marionite Rite. There is also a small Anglican Rite to accomodate converts from that communion who wish to follow their Book of Common Prayer liturgy.

A priest in any rite may never marry, but in some rites a married man can be ordained to sacerdotal ministry.If you're interested, I can post some information on this.

 

[Curiosity]

Sanctus

It would be of interest to me - I knew there were religious who were married - but of Catholicism I am only familiar with the Roman as it is practiced in the majority in our western world.

I have met far too many people in my work who have fallen into great life trouble because of the restrictions placed upon them - and personally I find it inhumane as we are all given varing degrees of
expressing love for another. To repress anything natural is cruelty itself.

 

[the caracal kid]

That is a myth. No translation errors occured. They were quite careful in their translation of the original texts into Latin. The books you refer to were already written down, that is the point you are missing. They were not written 300 years later. they were codified into one collection, but they existed from the time of the Apostles. Most of the N. T. was a collection of the letters Saint Paul sent to the various churches in the Roman empire.

What you just said is the part of the mythology of christianity. The letters of paul indeed! Are you a paulist? How do you know who paul is? How are you certian the letters are by paul? You take all this on faith! Faith that fantastical stories carry some deserving of acceptance without evidence. So do you accept the fantastical stories being told by pagans and jews of the same era? Ask yourself how the councils answered these questions, as they edited the NT to become what it was. The torah got mistranslated as it became the christian OT.

answer me this:
"How can you trust a book that can't even agree which century (1st century BCE or 1st century CE) that their demi-god was born in? If these were supposed eye witness accounts or retelling of eye witness accounts, they would not make such mistakes. They would not make mistakes such as saying that John the Baptist baptised Jesus, when by Matthew's account, Jesus would have had to start his ministry and been dead before John started his. Or would have started his ministry after John was imprisoned (Luke's account). Who died before John (in either case, Matthew or Luke), although the gospels report that John died first...Eye witness accounts or even retelling of eye witness accounts would not make these mistakes."

Jesus teaches us that we are a part of God, and all things around us. That was his general conception of the ideology of the "good neighbour". And for us, it is not a "supposed" entity. It is God, the Holy Trinity. He gave us the ability to be in fellowship with him. But like all relationships, there are boundaries which must be recognized. The creation is not, for example, in a position to dictate to the Creator.

Then what of the separation? The creator and the created are the same thing! The separation is really about controlling and dominating a population, which is what the abrahamics are all about.

As for the three-in-one god, that is another concept born 300 years after the supposed life of jesus to aid in the conversion of pagans.

 

[sanctus]

What you just said is the part of the mythology of christianity. The letters of paul indeed! Are you a paulist? How do you know who paul is? How are you certian the letters are by paul? You take all this on faith! Faith that fantastical stories carry some deserving of acceptance without evidence. ns.

There is quite a good body of knowledge about the Apostle Paul and his life.This is both from Christian and non-Christian sources.We have more than faith of the mans actions and the events of his life. ​

 

[sanctus]

answer me this:
"How can you trust a book that can't even agree which century (1st century BCE or 1st century CE) that their demi-god was born in? If these were supposed eye witness accounts or retelling of eye witness accounts, they would not make such mistakes. They would not make mistakes such as saying that John the Baptist baptised Jesus, when by Matthew's account, Jesus would have had to start his ministry and been dead before John started his. Or would have started his ministry after John was imprisoned (Luke's account). Who died before John (in either case, Matthew or Luke), although the gospels report that John died first...Eye witness accounts or even retelling of eye witness accounts would not make these mistakes." .

Your first error in assumption is treating the books of the Bible as if they were history texts. The Bible sustains more than just a re-telling of the stories, as it were. There is no date provided in any of the 4 Gospels for the actual birth of Christ. However, it is beside the point. the point is that Christ was born of a virgin and He was the Messiah promised in the Old Testament.Jesus began his ministry at the same time as John the Baptist was finishing his, prior to his arrest by Herod.When St. John baptized our
Lord, Jesus was not a baby, but a full grown man. It was the beginning of his public ministry.

 

[sanctus]

As for the three-in-one god, that is another concept born 300 years after the supposed life of jesus to aid in the conversion of pagans.

The teaching of the Trinity was not something created 300 years after the birth of the Church. where-ever did you get such an idea? You are consumed with the gathering of the 72 books of the Scriptures as if it was a brand new event never before with precedent in the life of the Church. You miss the obvious, the Church did not CREATE the faith 300 years after the death of our Lord. It wrote down, codified if you will, the existing faith and beliefs of the Church since the beginning.

 

[the caracal kid]

Your first error in assumption is treating the books of the Bible as if they were history texts. The Bible sustains more than just a re-telling of the stories, as it were. There is no date provided in any of the 4 Gospels for the actual birth of Christ. However, it is beside the point. the point is that Christ was born of a virgin and He was the Messiah promised in the Old Testament.Jesus began his ministry at the same time as John the Baptist was finishing his, prior to his arrest by Herod.When St. John baptized our
Lord, Jesus was not a baby, but a full grown man. It was the beginning of his public ministry.

I am saying they do not stand up to scrutiny. They are a mythology, a historical fiction. There is a great deal missing from the gospels for one to base anything around. Christ born of a virgin is a story theived from earlier mythologies, again to aid in conversion of pagans. The doomsday prophets were but MEN (those prophets that eventually became known as the fictional jesus character), but lets for sake of argument say that the jesus character did exist: well, the MAN said very little, and if your were a jesusite only what he said should be of interest to you, not another MAN's interpretation. Jesus was no god, nor born of a virgin. It makes great story when creating a religion though. Don't be tricked by the revisionist history of the bible and the churches.

The teaching of the Trinity was not something created 300 years after the birth of the Church. where-ever did you get such an idea? You are consumed with the gathering of the 72 books of the Scriptures as if it was a brand new event never before with precedent in the life of the Church. You miss the obvious, the Church did not CREATE the faith 300 years after the death of our Lord. It wrote down, codified if you will, the existing faith and beliefs of the Church since the beginning.

yes, the trinity was created after the fact. It was created as part of the methodology to convert pagans, and in the process paganized the early christian beliefs.

You are caught in the revisionist history of the church.

There is quite a good body of knowledge about the Apostle Paul and his life.This is both from Christian and non-Christian sources.We have more than faith of the mans actions and the events of his life. ​

So are you a paulist? So you worship a MAN? Makes since, in more ways than one.

"He was the Messiah promised in the Old Testament"
Really? Not according to the jews.


Anyway, back to the topic of humbleness and separation?

Why do YOU subsribe to this separation of your godhead from yourself?

 

[the caracal kid]

Sanctus

Thank you again - re your last comment on the virgin birth phrase.

I have always felt that to be offensive - if we look at the one who gave birth to us - most of humanity sees their mother with devotion and love. She is obviously no longer a virgin because she gave us life - therefore the term is demeaning to our mothers - our first love.

And even more blatant - it makes the act of creating humans something unworthy to be included in religious doctrine.
That in the eyes of the church - only "virgins" are an acceptable female form.

oops, i missed all the virgin talk!

well, curiosity, consider the following:
almah, the Hebrew word that was translated to "virgin" means "a young woman of marriable age" while the Hebrew word for "virgin" is bethulah.

This is where Sanctus will step in with "no translation errors", perhaps based on there being several versions of the original writings in question, which rather than clearing anything up further errodes the validity of the bible.