Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => General Discussion => Topic started by: stevusmagnus on September 18, 2012, 06:48:20 PM
-
Sigh...
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/us/historian-says-piece-of-papyrus-refers-to-jesus-wife.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3
A Faded Piece of Papyrus Refers to Jesus’ Wife
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — A historian of early Christianity at Harvard Divinity School has identified a scrap of papyrus that she says was written in Coptic in the fourth century and contains a phrase never seen in any piece of Scripture: “Jesus said to them, ‘My wife ...’ ”
The faded papyrus fragment is smaller than a business card, with eight lines on one side, in black ink legible under a magnifying glass. Just below the line about Jesus having a wife, the papyrus includes a second provocative clause that purportedly says, “she will be able to be my disciple.”
The finding was made public in Rome on Tuesday at an international meeting of Coptic scholars by Karen L. King, a historian who has published several books about new Gospel discoveries and is the first woman to hold the nation’s oldest endowed chair, the Hollis professor of divinity.
The provenance of the papyrus fragment is a mystery, and its owner has asked to remain anonymous. Until Tuesday, Dr. King had shown the fragment to only a small circle of experts in papyrology and Coptic linguistics, who concluded that it is most likely not a forgery. But she and her collaborators say they are eager for more scholars to weigh in and perhaps upend their conclusions.
Even with many questions unsettled, the discovery could reignite the debate over whether Jesus was married, whether Mary Magdalene was his wife and whether he had a female disciple. These debates date to the early centuries of Christianity, scholars say. But they are relevant today, when global Christianity is roiling over the place of women in ministry and the boundaries of marriage.
The discussion is particularly animated in the Roman Catholic Church, where despite calls for change, the Vatican has reiterated the teaching that the priesthood cannot be opened to women and married men because of the model set by Jesus.
Dr. King gave an interview and showed the papyrus fragment, encased in glass, to reporters from The New York Times, The Boston Globe and Harvard Magazine in her garret office in the tower at Harvard Divinity School last Thursday . She left the next day for Rome to deliver her paper on the find on Tuesday at the International Congress of Coptic Studies.
She repeatedly cautioned that this fragment should not be taken as proof that Jesus, the historical person, was actually married. The text was probably written centuries after Jesus lived, and all other early, historically reliable Christian literature is silent on the question, she said.
But the discovery is exciting, Dr. King said, because it is the first known statement from antiquity that refers to Jesus speaking of a wife. It provides further evidence that there was an active discussion among early Christians about whether Jesus was celibate or married, and which path his followers should choose.
“This fragment suggests that some early Christians had a tradition that Jesus was married,” Dr. King said. “There was, we already know, a controversy in the second century over whether Jesus was married, caught up with a debate about whether Christians should marry and have sex.”
Dr. King first learned about what she calls “The Gospel of Jesus’s Wife” when she received an e-mail in 2010 from a private collector who asked her to translate it. Dr. King, 58, specializes in Coptic literature, and has written books on the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Mary of Magdala, Gnosticism and women in antiquity.
The owner, who has a collection of Greek, Coptic and Arabic papyri, is not willing to be identified by name, nationality or location, because, Dr. King said, “He doesn’t want to be hounded by people who want to buy this.”
When, where or how the fragment was discovered is unknown. The collector acquired it in a batch of papyri in 1997 from the previous owner, a German. It came with a handwritten note in German that names a professor of Egyptology in Berlin, now deceased, and cited him calling the fragment “the sole example” of a text in which Jesus claims a wife.
The owner carried the fragment to the Divinity School in December 2011 and left it with Dr. King. She said she was initially suspicious, but it looked promising enough to explore. Three months later, she carried the fragment in her red handbag to New York to show it to two colleagues, both papyrologists: Roger Bagnall, director of the Institute for the Study of the Ancient World, at New York University, and AnneMarie Luijendijk, an associate professor of religion at Princeton University.
They examined the scrap under sharp magnification. It was very small — only 4 by 8 centimeters. The lettering was splotchy and uneven, the hand of an amateur, but not unusual for the time period, when many Christians were poor and persecuted.
It was written in Coptic, an Egyptian language that uses Greek characters — and more precisely, in Sahidic Coptic, a dialect from southern Egypt, Dr. Luijendijk said in an interview.
What convinced them it was probably genuine was the fading of the ink on the papyrus fibers, and traces of ink adhered to the bent fibers at the torn edges. The back side is so faint that only five words are visible, one only partly: “my moth[er],” “three,” “forth which.”
“It would be impossible to forge,” said Dr. Luijendijk, who contributed to Dr. King’s paper.
Dr. Bagnall reasoned that a forger would have had to be expert in Coptic grammar, handwriting and ideas. Most forgeries he has seen were nothing more than gibberish. And if it were a forgery intended to cause a sensation or make someone rich, why would it have lain in obscurity for so many years?
“It’s hard to construct a scenario that is at all plausible in which somebody fakes something like this. The world is not really crawling with crooked papyrologists,” Dr. Bagnall said.
The piece is torn into a rough rectangle, so that the docuмent is missing its adjoining text on the left, right, top and bottom — most likely the work of a dealer who divided up a larger piece to maximize his profit, Dr. Bagnall said.
Much of the context, therefore, is missing. But Dr. King was struck by phrases in the fragment like “My mother gave to me life,” and “Mary is worthy of it,” which resemble snippets from the Gospels of Thomas and Mary. Experts believe those were written in the late second century and translated into Coptic. She surmises that this fragment is also copied from a second century Greek text.
The meaning of the words, “my wife,” is beyond question, Dr. King said. “These words can mean nothing else.” The text beyond “my wife” is cut off.
Dr. King did not have the ink dated using carbon testing. She said it would require scraping off too much, destroying the relic. She still plans to have the ink tested by spectroscopy, which could roughly determine its age by its chemical composition.
Dr. King submitted her paper to The Harvard Theological Review, which asked three scholars to review it. Two questioned its authenticity, but they had seen only low-resolution photographs of the fragment and were unaware that expert papyrologists had seen the actual item and judged it to be genuine, Dr. King said. One of the two questioned the grammar, translation and interpretation.
Ariel Shisha-Halevy, an eminent Coptic linguist at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, was consulted, and responded in an e-mail in September, “I believe — on the basis of language and grammar — the text is authentic.”
Major doubts allayed, The Review plans to publish Dr. King’s article in its January issue.
The owner has offered to donate the papyrus to Harvard if the university buys a “substantial part of his collection,” Dr. King said, which Harvard is considering. She said she will “push him to come forward,” in part to avoid stoking conspiracy theories.
The notion that Jesus had a wife was the central conceit of the best seller and movie “The Da Vinci Code.” But Dr. King said she wants nothing to do with the code or its author: “At least, don’t say this proves Dan Brown was right.”
-
There are heretical "gospels" that say all sorts of things. Like most, this one is four hundred years removed from Our Lord's earthly life. Why would even a non-believer take this seriously?
-
why waste your time on that nonsense?
-
There are heretical "gospels" that say all sorts of things. Like most, this one is four hundred years removed from Our Lord's earthly life. Why would even a non-believer take this seriously?
Because non-believers earnestly desire to destroy the Church and they will use any stick they happen to find with which to beat her.
This is no different than the claims that Jesus was not actually born on December 25th, in the year 1 B.C.
-
The provenance of the papyrus fragment is a mystery, and its owner has asked to remain anonymous. Until Tuesday, Dr. King had shown the fragment to only a small circle of experts in papyrology and Coptic linguistics, who concluded that it is most likely not a forgery. But she and her collaborators say they are eager for more scholars to weigh in and perhaps upend their conclusions.
When, where or how the fragment was discovered is unknown. The collector acquired it in a batch of papyri in 1997 from the previous owner, a German. It came with a handwritten note in German that names a professor of Egyptology in Berlin, now deceased, and cited him calling the fragment “the sole example” of a text in which Jesus claims a wife.
.
Well, this piece from the NY Times, complete with a woman Harvard scholar, and paragraphs of serious BS has me convinced. Now I am convinced of nearly every kooky, paranoid conspiracy theory I've ever heard of. The article is so loaded with psy-op I can't adequately break it down.
"She carried the fragment in her red handbag..."
-
Women is an idiot.....an desperate for funds.....
-
Women is an idiot.....an desperate for funds.....
No, she is funded by the Luce Foundation, of unlimited resources. The Luce Foundation is an extremely powerful force in the world.
-
Well, Jesus Christ IS married to the Church and the Church DOES follow him as the Disciple so TECHNICALLY.......he does have a wife :reporter:
-
Women is an idiot.....an desperate for funds.....
No, she is funded by the Luce Foundation, of unlimited resources. The Luce Foundation is an extremely powerful force in the world.
ah, then there we have it...
-
she did not have hte materials, ink tested, and a lot of cloak/dagger people, names missing, dates missing, fragments missing, anounymous people.....what a crock...
-
she did not have hte materials, ink tested, and a lot of cloak/dagger people, names missing, dates missing, fragments missing, anounymous people.....what a crock...
I know, right? That's why the red purse likely means something.
And she's like the first female at her prestigious position, and a Luce Fellow. These are the warlocks who dictate what people think about, the cultural facet of global control.
They decide What Is Art. Who edits the news outlets. Who gets their book published. So I reckon Ms. King is a high priestess of some kind, and I'm not joking. Her prestige is enormous.
One of my children said this subject was discussed in school today!
-
There are heretical "gospels" that say all sorts of things. Like most, this one is four hundred years removed from Our Lord's earthly life. Why would even a non-believer take this seriously?
Because non-believers earnestly desire to destroy the Church and they will use any stick they happen to find with which to beat her.
This is no different than the claims that Jesus was not actually born on December 25th, in the year 1 B.C.
No, it is vastly different from that. It doesn't matter what day Our Lrod was born on, that I can see.
-
Out of context, it means absolutely nothing even if verified to the right time period (which it isn't). Sadly, many of our earliest manuscripts of the BCE and Biblical books were torn in pieces, as the dealers paid per piece, instead of putting a premium on the large manuscript.
-
There are heretical "gospels" that say all sorts of things. Like most, this one is four hundred years removed from Our Lord's earthly life. Why would even a non-believer take this seriously?
Because non-believers earnestly desire to destroy the Church and they will use any stick they happen to find with which to beat her.
This is no different than the claims that Jesus was not actually born on December 25th, in the year 1 B.C.
No, it is vastly different from that. It doesn't matter what day Our Lrod was born on, that I can see.
I agree. I care about the date of the Nativity, but this is a much more bold blasphemy. This is not about mere non-believers, it is about very powerful, active Luciferians whose work is to usher in the Antichrist and drag as many souls to Hell as possible.
-
There are heretical "gospels" that say all sorts of things. Like most, this one is four hundred years removed from Our Lord's earthly life. Why would even a non-believer take this seriously?
Because non-believers earnestly desire to destroy the Church and they will use any stick they happen to find with which to beat her.
This is no different than the claims that Jesus was not actually born on December 25th, in the year 1 B.C.
No, it is vastly different from that. It doesn't matter what day Our Lrod was born on, that I can see.
I agree. I care about the date of the Nativity, but this is a much more bold blasphemy. This is not about mere non-believers, it is about very powerful, active Luciferians whose work is to usher in the Antichrist and drag as many souls to Hell as possible.
Precisely, we are now witnessing the externalisation of the hierarchy as the arch-occultist Alice Bailey put it. It has become so obvious, that even many of the neo-pagans can sense the atmosphere of doom & horror that has come to pervade society now. I don't watch television, but I sometimes visit relatives who do, & it's astonishing how putrescent it is now, it's only a matter of time before they start showing pornographic films, most of the programmes (how appropriate a word, most people now emulate what they see portrayed on the screen of the idiot's lantern, the mighty goggle-box, but I digress) & advertisements are nothing more than very lightly censored versions of that already.
The other thing, pertaining more directly to the subject at hand is the glorification of the occult. I was astonished to find so many programmes depicting vampires, witches, mediums, werewolves &c., every black art, everything having to do with the preternatural has now got its own programme to seep into & mould young minds into a shape of the devil's choosing. How many children & young people will be enticed to meddle with sorcery, spells & necromancy &c., because they saw something of the sort on television?
How many of these in turn wil thereby open themselves up to demonic possession or obsession, bringing a curse onto their houses? In reading the various prophecies regarding the coming Chastisement, I have read several times that God will destroy the advanced technology that now exists, bringing everything back to a level more like that of the early 19th century if not earlier. Considering the effects of television goes a long way toward helping one understand why this should be so.
-
There are heretical "gospels" that say all sorts of things. Like most, this one is four hundred years removed from Our Lord's earthly life. Why would even a non-believer take this seriously?
I don't know if it is so much non-believers that care about this stuff. It is those who identify as Catholic that made The Da Vinci code such a hit. Prots and non-believers aren't as fascinated with church history and any potential mysteries as those who have grown up steeped in so called "cultural Catholicism."
Your average, modern, liberal Catholic would just love to have something they could use to say "See...the church was wrong about this (Jesus' marital status) so it could also be wrong about gαy marriage, birth control etc. Jesus loved everyone, we should accept everyone, tolerate everything..."
Read this is this morning, from a "Catholic"
Who would have thought initially that Dan Brown's novels would have provoked the responses they provoked from institutions like Opus Dei, assorted bishops and cardinals, and the subdean of Westminster Abbey! WHAT IF Jesus had married, had married Mary Magdalene, made babies enough for a championship football team, and retired to a small cave in southern France -- after the ascension of course!
Religion has long been a fertile ground for a transcendent brand of doctrine styled "my way or the highway" theology. That's how we silence people who disagree with us, or just plain get rid of them, as in bonfires and gas chambers. 'Tis a bit early for anyone to prognosticate how this discovery will "change" Christianity, if it does at all. Whatever may come of it, perhaps it will become a personal invitation to all to leave their good Christian lives and follow Jesus, who may (or may not) be a husband and daddy.
As far as the "finding" itself? I was a young teen when I saw The Da Vinci Code. Unfortunately, I did seek out the gnostic "gospels" and wanted to see if Jesus really did kiss Mary Magdalene. It is crazy how media can mess with people.
When my bff got married, she had major problems with her priest (this is the priest that later ended up helping me back to the Faith) and after the ceremony was over she decided to basically taunt him and tell him that it was her belief that Jesus loved Mary Magdalene so much, that he gave the church to her, not St. Peter. Peter, she believed was just as much a "misogynist" as Paul (this was her words) and he couldn't stand it that Jesus was a feminist, so he "stole" it back. :facepalm: You might be shocked at how many people believe things like that.
http://www.gnostic.info/rose_Mary%20Magdalene.html
-
When my bff got married, she had major problems with her priest (this is the priest that later ended up helping me back to the Faith) and after the ceremony was over she decided to basically taunt him and tell him that it was her belief that Jesus loved Mary Magdalene so much, that he gave the church to her, not St. Peter. Peter, she believed was just as much a "misogynist" as Paul (this was her words) and he couldn't stand it that Jesus was a feminist, so he "stole" it back. :facepalm: You might be shocked at how many people believe things like that.
Did you see her behave in this manner or did she tell you later on herself? People sometimes like to exaggerate.
-
A disciple of our enemy says they have something slightly smaller than a business card that was provided by an unnamed collector who insists on maintianing his privacy to "experts" who can never have what they are saying questioned and all this small piece of paper contains is that Jesus was married and that Mary Magdalene was to be a disciple so, logically, the Holy Church is wrong about celibacy in the priesthood and wrong about women priests. They even have a Jєωιѕн specialist from an Israeli university who gives this piece of evidence the thumb's up.
That's all they're saying. :rolleyes:
Hey, at least they have more than just a pig's tooth this time (From only a pig's tooth, the concept of Piltdown Man was conceived in the 1920's.)
The enemies of Our Lord Jesus Christ are up late at night coming up with all kinds of gimmicks. It's our job to not follow along with such foolery!
-
The precursor to Ms. King is Elaine Pagels. She is from an elite academic background, her dad was a noted biologist, she graduated from Stanford and Harvard, published The Gnostic Gospels in 1979 and she has been a Macarthur Fellow for decades at Princeton. She's the head of Religion there. I read her Gospels maybe 30 years ago. My Catholic girlfriend gave me her copy.
So, these Luciferian works have been taught to the elite children for decades. This is how social engineering occurs. "First the classes, then the masses". The prestige of the movers and shakers in elite universities, their influence should not be underestimated.
So, Captain, I think it is unlikely that PW's friend was exaggerating. This is a common belief among educated Catholic ladies; their college-educated moms had already been seduced by the Luciferian gnostic material years ago.
-
Elizabeth,
Regarding PW's friend, I was just suspicious that someone would be that rude on her wedding day.
I know what you mean and I'm minimally familiar with Elaine Pagels. There are many others just like her. Back in the 1990's there was the "Jesus Seminar" and this group specialized in deciding which statements of Jesus were actually said by him and which weren't and they decided this by a vote.
There was a socialist activist named "Rev" Barry Lynn of the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State but he's not called on by the press so much anymore because just about everyone has figured out the game he's playing.
There's Bishop Shelby Spong who has written of slew of pretentious books about why Christianity must change of die.
There's dozens and dozens of docuмentary producers who are always producing films which purport to debunk Christianity.
These guys and gals are all out there.
Some spread lies to deceive the flock others debunk Catholicism because Catholicism stands in the way of their evil temporal plans. Either way, they spread lies and work againt Our Lord.
We know the liars have an ulteriour motive, but the question we should be concerned with is why do some souls believe lies about Our Lord Jesus Christ and Our Lady?
Why do some souls not ask basic questions about the evidence in favor of the fraud? It's not hard to discern that a story based on such scant evidence should attract a lot of skepticism.
It's not the absence of curiosity but instead is a willingness and eagerness to be free from moral judgement. I'm sure there are some other reasons but they would be unsavory.
People who believe lies about Our Lord and Our Lady do it because they WANT to believe those lies. Perhaps people who so willingly believe lies about Our Lord and Our Lady aren't part of the fold to begin with. It's possible. It could even mean that they may actually possess rancid souls and that they are in jeopardy of being condemned eternally. Even when I was in the novus ordo and hadn't been clued in to their abominations and fakery, I was already figuring it out for myself.
-
I think Pagels was especially seductive, and infused with a superior demonic intelligence. But, it is heartening to hear that you have a strong defense against such snares, Captain! :cheers:
Theillhard de Chardin passed off a fake discovery, and only God knows the spiritual wreckage he is responsible for.
-
Not all of the Gnostic gospels are evil. There are certainly some that are garbage, and writtien with an agenda far after the fact, but some Gnostic Gospels were used by the churches in Jerusalem Antioch and Egypt--after all, there was no Magisterium or authority that began to define all of the collections until around 170. It was a growing church and some churches were lucky enough to have letters from Elders like Peter Paul and James. But there came the time when the church had to start making things consistent. Some things were omitted just because they didn't serve a huge purpose, and they wanted to keep the scriptures a reasonable size. Others were banned as heresy or inaccurate.
-
Did you see her behave in this manner or did she tell you later on herself? People sometimes like to exaggerate.
I was just suspicious that someone would be that rude on her wedding day.
Half of the wedding party was present for this conservation, so yes, I heard it, and sadly was not surprised. Granted, she was sort of grinning as she said all this, but she wanted to get a rise out of him and because of other conversations we have had, I know for certain that she fully believes Mary Magdalene's role in the early church was greatly suppressed.
The reason she said it when she did is because her wedding almost didn't happen. BFF is involved in a lot of things with her church, and her and this priest just did not mesh well. Just weeks before the ceremony the priest found out her and her fiancee were living together and he said he wasn't comfortable marrying them. Of course, her response to that was that if he has such an interest in stopping pre-martial relations then he should WANT to marry them asap, and not refuse to marry them and leave them living in sin. He stood is ground and wanted her to move her stuff out. She did it, but was not happy about it and her parents made a big fuss...her Dad made some comment about how they no longer publish banns (spelling??) so it was none of his business, it isn't his job to be an investigator etc. They had further issues with the music and the readings at her wedding, and it was just tense. Yet because her fiance's family had been going to this parish for a long time, and she was on a few committees, they did not want to go elsewhere. Well, the mass homily "coincidentally" touched on some sensitive topics regarding married life. (High five to him...lol) :laugh1: and the lovely bride wasn't happy at all. So that is why she decided to share her conspiracy theory right after they were married. She thinks he is a male chauvinist, so she wanted to push some buttons as payback for the homily.
I could go on, because just a few months ago she did something else really rude against him, but I won't derail the thread. I'm ashamed of her blasphemy, and she has pretty much disowned me. I just see the bright side...I met him through her wedding, and despite being N.O. he taught me a lot and really helped me. Of course, to bff it was brainwashing me with "Paulist doctrine" but whatever. :wink:
Back to the original topic: I know someone who went to Loyala in Chicago and she claims she had a Jesuit priest professor who said it was quite possible that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. So yes, "Catholics" absolutely do believe and promote these ideas. (destruction from within...)
Even Scorsese's "The Last Temptation of Christ" implies that Jesus was in love with Mary Magdalene. It's a strangely popular topic, despite no real evidence.
-
{Penitent Woman }----------
"Well, the mass homily "coincidentally" touched on some sensitive topics regarding married life. (High five to him...lol) :laugh1: and the lovely bride wasn't happy at all. So that is why she decided to share her conspiracy theory right after they were married. She thinks he is a male chauvinist, so she wanted to push some buttons as payback for the homily.
I could go on, because just a few months ago she did something else really rude against him, but I won't derail the thread. I'm ashamed of her blasphemy, and she has pretty much disowned me. I just see the bright side...I met him through her wedding, and despite being N.O. he taught me a lot and really helped me. Of course, to bff it was brainwashing me with "Paulist doctrine" but whatever."
I feel sorry for the poor fellow that married this woman. Most likely he's in for a few years of ever worsening misery, until she finally gives him the stab in the kidney of a surprise divorce because she's no longer haaaaaapy (extra a's used to indicate petty whinging tone of voice).
-
Even Scorsese's "The Last Temptation of Christ" implies that Jesus was in love with Mary Magdalene. It's a strangely popular topic, despite no real evidence.
It's popular because the implicit goal of casting such aspersions on our Lord is to downplay His divinity, the very fact of His place in the Godhead. If he was married then He wasn't really God, He was just a nice Jєωιѕн boy that got killed for having good ideas about loving one another.
This same discussion came up when I was reviewing the Criterion release of Scorsese's film (doing so was against my better judgement, but I'm OCD about finishing collections). The most common remark that I found from those that supported the film, or the heretical notion of His matrimony to a woman rather than the Church, was that it made him more approachable, more "human." What it really meant was that it made him as flawed and unworthy as any other fallen human being, and the spiritual agony felt by their souls was soothed by that Christoatheism.
-
Even Scorsese's "The Last Temptation of Christ" implies that Jesus was in love with Mary Magdalene. It's a strangely popular topic, despite no real evidence.
It's popular because the implicit goal of casting such aspersions on our Lord is to downplay His divinity, the very fact of His place in the Godhead. If he was married then He wasn't really God, He was just a nice Jєωιѕн boy that got killed for having good ideas about loving one another.
This same discussion came up when I was reviewing the Criterion release of Scorsese's film (doing so was against my better judgement, but I'm OCD about finishing collections). The most common remark that I found from those that supported the film, or the heretical notion of His matrimony to a woman rather than the Church, was that it made him more approachable, more "human." What it really meant was that it made him as flawed and unworthy as any other fallen human being, and the spiritual agony felt by their souls was soothed by that Christoatheism.
You give a good explanation. I've always wondered why people move from just being curious about it (like I was as a young teen) to outright wanting it to be true.
-
I feel sorry for the fellow that married this woman. Most likely he's in for a few years of ever worsening misery, until she finally gives him the stab in the kidney of a surprise divorce because she's no longer haaaaaapy (extra a's used to indicate petty whinging tone of voice).
LOL, you should have heard my toast at her reception. ;)
-
Not all of the Gnostic gospels are evil. There are certainly some that are garbage, and writtien with an agenda far after the fact, but some Gnostic Gospels were used by the churches in Jerusalem Antioch and Egypt--after all, there was no Magisterium or authority that began to define all of the collections until around 170. It was a growing church and some churches were lucky enough to have letters from Elders like Peter Paul and James. But there came the time when the church had to start making things consistent. Some things were omitted just because they didn't serve a huge purpose, and they wanted to keep the scriptures a reasonable size. Others were banned as heresy or inaccurate.
Can you give any specific examples of non-evil gnostic gospels? I had always thought they were all bad.
-
Loriann said:
Not all of the Gnostic gospels are evil.
Gnosticism in itself is evil, so therefore any gospel that is called "gnostic" would be evil... Accordingly, your statement is objectively evil.
There are certainly some that are garbage, and writtien with an agenda far after the fact, but some Gnostic Gospels were used by the churches in Jerusalem Antioch and Egypt--after all, there was no Magisterium or authority that began to define all of the collections until around 170.
Please show me any evidence whatsoever of Gnostic gospels being used in Jerusalem, Antioch and Egypt by Catholics, because I aver this is a complete falsehood. If you're talking about Gnostic churches, sure, they were most likely used there.
Even if they were used by local bishops or priests because the Bible had not yet been compiled by St. Jerome -- which I strongly doubt -- it has long been determined by Catholics what they really are, and they are all in total disrepute.
Just read the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Gnosticism where it discusses the various Gnostic gospels that sprung up during the early years of the Church. The reason why so many sprung up, was the devil was trying to bury the truth with lies, and they are all bad.
It was a growing church and some churches were lucky enough to have letters from Elders like Peter Paul and James. But there came the time when the church had to start making things consistent. Some things were omitted just because they didn't serve a huge purpose, and they wanted to keep the scriptures a reasonable size. Others were banned as heresy or inaccurate.
The whole implication of what you're saying, that certain gnostic gospels were not so bad, but were just omitted for the sake of brevity, is probably heretical in itself. You are very subtly tying in the Gnostic gospels with less scandalous apocrypha. I will just assume you are doing this innocently. At any rate, gnosticism is a heresy, so the reason why they were not included in the canon is not for space reasons...
-
Loriann said:
Not all of the Gnostic gospels are evil.
Gnosticism in itself is evil, so therefore any gospel that is called "gnostic" would be evil... Accordingly, your statement is objectively evil.
There are certainly some that are garbage, and writtien with an agenda far after the fact, but some Gnostic Gospels were used by the churches in Jerusalem Antioch and Egypt--after all, there was no Magisterium or authority that began to define all of the collections until around 170.
Please show me any evidence whatsoever of Gnostic gospels being used in Jerusalem, Antioch and Egypt by Catholics, because I aver this is a complete falsehood. If you're talking about Gnostic churches, sure, they were most likely used there.
Even if they were used by local bishops or priests because the Bible had not yet been compiled by St. Jerome -- which I strongly doubt -- it has long been determined by Catholics what they really are, and they are all in total disrepute.
Just read the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Gnosticism where it discusses the various Gnostic gospels that sprung up during the early years of the Church. The reason why so many sprung up, was the devil was trying to bury the truth with lies, and they are all bad.
It was a growing church and some churches were lucky enough to have letters from Elders like Peter Paul and James. But there came the time when the church had to start making things consistent. Some things were omitted just because they didn't serve a huge purpose, and they wanted to keep the scriptures a reasonable size. Others were banned as heresy or inaccurate.
The whole implication of what you're saying, that certain gnostic gospels were not so bad, but were just omitted for the sake of brevity, is probably heretical in itself. You are very subtly tying in the Gnostic gospels with less scandalous apocrypha. I will just assume you are doing this innocently. At any rate, gnosticism is a heresy, so the reason why they were not included in the canon is not for space reasons...
Gnosis is knowledge and then a movement. Like the Wisdom books are Wisdom. St Paul mentions both types in 1 Timothy. The Gnostic Gospel of the Hebrews was used in ancient churches. In fact, when St JErome was working on the compilation, the Nazoreans came to him with it so did the Ebionites. But Jerome declared that it was an earlier draft of Matthew. Yes the gnostic movement is a heresy.
-
Even Scorsese's "The Last Temptation of Christ" implies that Jesus was in love with Mary Magdalene. It's a strangely popular topic, despite no real evidence.
It's popular because the implicit goal of casting such aspersions on our Lord is to downplay His divinity, the very fact of His place in the Godhead. If he was married then He wasn't really God, He was just a nice Jєωιѕн boy that got killed for having good ideas about loving one another.
This same discussion came up when I was reviewing the Criterion release of Scorsese's film (doing so was against my better judgement, but I'm OCD about finishing collections). The most common remark that I found from those that supported the film, or the heretical notion of His matrimony to a woman rather than the Church, was that it made him more approachable, more "human." What it really meant was that it made him as flawed and unworthy as any other fallen human being, and the spiritual agony felt by their souls was soothed by that Christoatheism.
Actually, the Lat Temptation has Christ married to both Mary and Martha of Bethany. This happens in the temptation , which is kind of a dream, not reality.
Yes, I have seen it. It was a terrible move in every sense.
-
Some of the so called Gnostic Gospels are not really Gnostic, they are just not canonical. The story our Our Lady being presented in the Temple, which is commemorated in both East and West, comes from such a docuмent. The ones that are genuinely Gnostic are of course heretical.
-
Even Scorsese's "The Last Temptation of Christ" implies that Jesus was in love with Mary Magdalene. It's a strangely popular topic, despite no real evidence.
It's popular because the implicit goal of casting such aspersions on our Lord is to downplay His divinity, the very fact of His place in the Godhead. If he was married then He wasn't really God, He was just a nice Jєωιѕн boy that got killed for having good ideas about loving one another.
This same discussion came up when I was reviewing the Criterion release of Scorsese's film (doing so was against my better judgement, but I'm OCD about finishing collections). The most common remark that I found from those that supported the film, or the heretical notion of His matrimony to a woman rather than the Church, was that it made him more approachable, more "human." What it really meant was that it made him as flawed and unworthy as any other fallen human being, and the spiritual agony felt by their souls was soothed by that Christoatheism.
Actually, the Lat Temptation has Christ married to both Mary and Martha of Bethany. This happens in the temptation , which is kind of a dream, not reality.
Yes, I have seen it. It was a terrible move in every sense.
But wasn't it like a "what if" dream, implying Jesus had already developed romantic feelings and was tempted to act on them? I can't remember exactly.
-
I tried watching The Last Temptation of Christ and was too bored to stick with it. I changed the channel after about 15 minutes. It's trash, at least the first 15 minutes. A movie critic who wrote the book "Hollywood vs. America" said that while sitting in a room full of critics watching the Last Temptation everyone was laughing at the lousy movie and just cutting up on how dumb the whole thing was. Then, a few days later, this same guy read the write up in the paper of one of the guys dismissing it so openly in the room yet this guy gave it a middle of the road presentation. When asked why when the movie was clearly trash, this guy said that he can't afford to be lumped in with the religious right and if he trashes the movie than his reputation would be affected.
-
Just weeks before the ceremony the priest found out her and her fiancee were living together and he said he wasn't comfortable marrying them. Of course, her response to that was that if he has such an interest in stopping pre-martial relations then he should WANT to marry them asap, and not refuse to marry them and leave them living in sin. He stood is ground and wanted her to move her stuff out. She did it, but was not happy about it and her parents made a big fuss...her Dad made some comment about how they no longer publish banns (spelling??) so it was none of his business, it isn't his job to be an investigator etc. They had further issues with the music and the readings at her wedding, and it was just tense. Yet because her fiance's family had been going to this parish for a long time, and she was on a few committees, they did not want to go elsewhere. Well, the mass homily "coincidentally" touched on some sensitive topics regarding married life. (High five to him...lol) :laugh1: and the lovely bride wasn't happy at all.
Yea for priests who are solid enough to say what needs to be said. :rahrah:
I had only been attending the TLM for about seven months when we married. Our priest gave a solid sermon about what married life was all about, not so much for us as for all of the guests who wouldn't normally hear a sermon from a Trad priest. He even included remarks about divorce and how a Catholic can not remarry which was likely largely directed at my parents. At the time I thought all Trad priests would probably do the same in a wedding sermon with such a diverse group of attendees, but now I'm thinking it might have had something to do with having been married by a Pfeiffer. :scratchchin:
-
Just weeks before the ceremony the priest found out her and her fiancee were living together and he said he wasn't comfortable marrying them. Of course, her response to that was that if he has such an interest in stopping pre-martial relations then he should WANT to marry them asap, and not refuse to marry them and leave them living in sin. He stood is ground and wanted her to move her stuff out. She did it, but was not happy about it and her parents made a big fuss...her Dad made some comment about how they no longer publish banns (spelling??) so it was none of his business, it isn't his job to be an investigator etc. They had further issues with the music and the readings at her wedding, and it was just tense. Yet because her fiance's family had been going to this parish for a long time, and she was on a few committees, they did not want to go elsewhere. Well, the mass homily "coincidentally" touched on some sensitive topics regarding married life. (High five to him...lol) :laugh1: and the lovely bride wasn't happy at all.
Yea for priests who are solid enough to say what needs to be said. :rahrah:
I had only been attending the TLM for about seven months when we married. Our priest gave a solid sermon about what married life was all about, not so much for us as for all of the guests who wouldn't normally hear a sermon from a Trad priest. He even included remarks about divorce and how a Catholic can not remarry which was likely largely directed at my parents. At the time I thought all Trad priests would probably do the same in a wedding sermon with such a diverse group of attendees, but now I'm thinking it might have had something to do with having been married by a Pfeiffer. :scratchchin:
Our NO priest delivered a similar sermon at our wedding too. He talked about the rules of marriage and the covenant and explained about divorce being a sin also. He was a young man, too. But that was 30 years ago.