Catholic Church Scandal! (4 Viewers)

[Madmarsha]

Facts -- these days -- just don't mean what they're supposed to mean.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

Facts -- these days -- just don't mean what they're supposed to mean.

Literally

 

[Booker]

I asked because it's kind of a litmus test about the trust we put in these molester-enablers discussed above in the thread.

Y'all believe it? What's the evidence?

Paul's letters (48-62) - the only Christian writings within Mary's lifetime. Never says she was a virgin. Says the opposite - Jesus was born of David's line (literally spermatoi in Greek). Romans 1:1-4.

Mark (c. 70) - the original surviving gospel. No virgin birth. God says "you are my son" after baptism.

Matthew (c. 80) - virgin birth after Wise Men visit Mary's house in Bethlehem and after Herod kills the babies (didn't happen). Why? Because "it was foretold." But was it? Isaiah 7 speaks of a woman (almah) not a virgin (betula) who was already pregant (no future tense). How could "Matthew" mess up so badly? Because he spoke Greek and was reading the Septuagent which says parthenoi (kind of like our "maiden").

Luke (c. 85) - virgin birth amidst a totally different nativity scene (manger in Bethlehem because originally from Nazareth; no wise men; no baby-killings; census that you had to go home for (didn't happen).

John (c. 90) - no nativity scene.

That's the evidence. My whole point is to say that you believe Mary was a virgin not because of evidence but because these molester-enablers say so. They and their enablers brainwashed you with this stuff.

So sorry for the lecture, but this is to follow-up on the post above that asked, quite cogently, why believe in the rest of the church while admitting that the latest branch that got caught is evil? They're all in cahoots.

Regarding Paul, in that passage he doesn't actually provide testimony on Jesus' genealogy, he's making a theologically based statement. Paul is explicit that everything he says about Jesus he learned either from scripture or direct revelation, "not from any man" (Galatians 1:12), and in this case he's pulling this knowledge of Jesus from 2 Samuel 7:12-16.

In that passage, God tells David that after he dies God will take his sperm and create a Son who will build his throne and eternal kingdom, which early Christians later interpreted be secretly about Jesus. So Paul says Jesus was made from David's sperm not because they had any records stating such, but because scripture said it must be so.

A further interesting note about that is that, though the modern translation of Paul is that Jesus was born of David's line, what Paul literally says is Jesus was formed by God with David's sperm, using the same word he uses to discuss Adam being formed by God with clay (ginomai) instead of the word he uses elsewhere to describe one as naturally born (gennaô). So again, he's talking theologically, not historically.

 

[Consigliere]

Regarding Paul, in that passage he doesn't actually provide testimony on Jesus' genealogy, he's making a theologically based statement. Paul is explicit that everything he says about Jesus he learned either from scripture or direct revelation, "not from any man" (Galatians 1:12), and in this case he's pulling this knowledge of Jesus from 2 Samuel 7:12-16.

In that passage, God tells David that after he dies God will take his sperm and create a Son who will build his throne and eternal kingdom, which early Christians later interpreted be secretly about Jesus. So Paul says Jesus was made from David's sperm not because they had any records stating such, but because scripture said it must be so.

A further interesting note about that is that, though the modern translation of Paul is that Jesus was born of David's line, what Paul literally says is Jesus was formed by God with David's sperm, using the same word he uses to discuss Adam being formed by God with clay (ginomai) instead of the word he uses elsewhere to describe one as naturally born (gennaô). So again, he's talking theologically, not historically.

LOL nobody thinks Paul had a birth certificate or DNA analysis. He's making stuff up right and left. He sees a light and thinks he knows Jesus better than Peter & Co.

Thanks for the ginomai/gennao distinction. Do you think that's referring to David's "line" or his actual sperm? and is it a point in favor of Paul thinking Mary was a virgin?

 

[Booker]

LOL nobody thinks Paul had a birth certificate or DNA analysis.

Thanks for the ginomai/gennao distinction. Do you think that's referring to David's "line" or his actual sperm? and is it a point in favor of Paul thinking Mary was a virgin?

Obviously there was no birth certificate or DNA analysis (smart arse! ), but there's also no evidence of any oral or written history either behind that, just repurposed scripture, which is what I was pointing out.

Regarding the virgin birth, I don't think that had been thought up yet during Paul's time. He makes no mention of it nor Mary, nor do any other writers, until that story debuted in Matthew, written a least a generation after Paul died, with Matthew repurposing Isaiah 7:14. (There's even a clever little twist in Matthew, as Isaiah reads "the young girl/virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel." Jesus is never in fact referred to as Immanuel, which translates to "God is with you," but there is a play on this in the last line of Matthew, where he concludes his Gospel with Jesus saying "I am with you.")

Regarding what Paul meant, sperm or line, he literally and specifically says God made Jesus' flesh from David's sperm/seed, not that he was merely born of his line (as many if not most or even all first century Jews would have believed themselves to be descendants of David), so I lean to that intent. But the former wouldn't preclude the latter, and either way it's a theological construct of a zealot, so he's just repeating and rationalizing what he "learned" from 2 Samuel.

 

[SystemShock]

Pointing out the inconsistencies of particular belief systems (which I have done numerous times, I’m not removing myself from this observation) misses the point of the belief system and it’s potential impact

otoh people who hold their spiritual beliefs as factual information others should share also miss the point

We should be able to hold the inconsistencies simultaneously

Sounds good, but @Consigliere touched upon a fundamental, core aspect of the Christian belief system, not an inconsistency in the story..

 

[Consigliere]

repurposing Isaiah 7:14. ... clever little twist ... "I am with you.")

TIL. Stuff like this is why I love the Bible. The more you read (really read) the more fascinating it is.

 

[Consigliere]

fundamental, core aspect of the Christian belief system

Well, it kind of is, but it kind of isn't. Whether and when Mary did it with Joseph is a superficial detail to the rest of the story. But some folks seem to be so certain that she didn't re: Jesus, so it is a useful topic going back up this thread re: the molester-enablers who have been brainwashing folks with this stuff for 2000 years.

 

[SystemShock]

Well, it kind of is, but it kind of isn't. Whether and when Mary did it with Joseph is a superficial detail to the rest of the story. But some folks seem to be so certain that she didn't re: Jesus, so it is a useful topic going back up this thread re: the molester-enablers who have been brainwashing folks with this stuff for 2000 years.

The Virgin Mary? Definitely a fundamental part of Christianity, and especially Catholicism.

 

[Boy_of_wonder75]

Well, it kind of is, but it kind of isn't. Whether and when Mary did it with Joseph is a superficial detail to the rest of the story. But some folks seem to be so certain that she didn't re: Jesus, so it is a useful topic going back up this thread re: the molester-enablers who have been brainwashing folks with this stuff for 2000 years.

The first Chapter of Luke makes it pretty clear, though, at least being a virgin through Jesus' conception. As far as her perpetual virginity, I agree that it seem tangential. Thomas Aquinas also didn't believe in it. It's one of the few things the Catholic Church rejects from Aquinas' work.

 

[Mr. Blue Sky]

The Virgin Mary? Definitely a fundamental part of Christianity, and especially Catholicism.

What’s wild, at least to me, as someone who grew up in the church, had first communion & confession, served as an altar boy and the whole deal- is that Mary conceiving a child without ‘getting busy’ as it were, is not even the most far-fetched belief.. turning water into wine, anyone ? How about a guy literally parting a sea ?? I mean, if anyone here who is a true believer wants to come out and say ‘Hey, those things never happened, they are just symbolic’ - then we can have a conversation.. but if you are gonna sit here and insult my intelligence by claiming they did happen, i just dont know that an honest conversation is a possibility .

 

[Consigliere]

The Virgin Mary? Definitely a fundamental part of Christianity, and especially Catholicism.

Well it’s a contention of fact that numerous Catholics have killed and died for, so in that sense you’re right.

My point is that Jesus could have been and done everything they say, but it doesn’t matter what his (human) parents did or did not do. Methinks Matthew and Luke may have been more or less sincere in their reporting of the general morality/metaphysics of Jesus and his message, but they had to make up sexy facts to sell their story. (In this case not-sexy facts.). You got the walk-on-water to match Orion, you got the water-into-wine to match Dionysus, but to impress the pagans you got to match divine parentage of Hercules, etc.

Again, to tie it back to the top of this thread, it seems conspicuous that the same people who strive to maintain the secrecy of Mary having sex with a man, also strive to maintain the secrecy of their cohorts having sex with boys.