Inspired by a friend to further earlier conversation, I don‘t profess this as any great mastery. It's a foundation to continue discussion in a clean Comment section. Feel free to jump in with grounded info and I welcome correction of any materially misstated facts within the article.
Everyone’s entitled to their own opinion but only legitimately related opinion or questions are welcomed. This is not for contemptuous argument, doctrine bashing or a battle of wits, it's for intelligent discussion and reasonably formed and informed debate.
Â
Reading History's Dates
Just an FYI for anyone who's as confused as I about historical dating. Without going into science and emporer changes that cause today’s calendar to be inaccurate, this is a simple guide for reading dates:
There is no year O. There is no difference between the acronyms A.D. & CE; or between the acronyms B.C. & BCE, in dating.
B.C. - means ‘Before Christ’ and starts with Year 1
A.D.- means ‘Anno Domini’ or ‘Year of our Lord,’ it's the year of Christ’s birth, also starting with Year 1. (Commonly referred to as ‘After Death,’ obviously inaccurate.)
CE - a recent term meaning ‘Common Era,’ used in place of A.D.
BCE - a recent term meaning 'Before Common Era,' used in place of B.C.
We can guess how 'common era' changes came about and you're likely just as confused now as you were before if not more, given that 'Year 1' thing. Only politics could so complicate something so simple and early Roman emperors were no exception.
Footnote: In researching this I was astounded by The People's similarities throughout these years, to today (which I've not drawn attention to in this rendition). It's most interesting reading in more detail for those who think they've lost inspiration, see "More Reading" list at the bottom.
Â
Jesus & the Roman Empire
It’s most widely accepted that Jesus Christ was born 4-6 B.C., two years before the death of the Roman Empire’s Herod the Great. Precise calculations suggest Jesus was born in the month of September or October.
Christianity began in Judea (current day Israel) about 2,000 years ago with the teachings of Jesus and disciples who ultimately followed him. Judea was a cultural mecca of cities and farms. Click the map to enlarge and view the area.
Rome was under its first emperor rule when Jesus taught the “new covenant“ (New Testament). Jesus is known by Christians as the Son of God and of Man, conceived by God with the virgin Mary who married Joseph.
Jews hated Roman rule because it was a pagan reminder of their historical oppression and it violated their Torah (Old Testament) faith. The Romans worshiped a number of gods and superficial idols they‘d built to those gods. That was in direct conflict with the Jewish faith, which recognized the one and only God of the Bible.
"Torah" refers to the Five [Biblical] Books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. But the word "torah" can also be used to refer to the entire Jewish bible (the body of scripture known to non-Jews as the Old Testament and to Jews as the Tanakh or Written Torah), or in its broadest sense, to the whole body of Jewish law and teachings.
The start of Christianity is recorded in accounts of the New Testament but its history began with Old Testament prophecy. There are over 300 predictions of the coming of a Jewish Messiah that are recorded in the Old Testament, spanning more than 1000 years.
Click the map to see the Jews' exodus from Egypt through the Wilderness; and Cannan (current day Israel), their Promised Land.
Some Jews saw conforming to the Roman Empire as their only hope. Others became religious zealots developing warlike guerilla resistances against Rome. Still others withdrew into the Judean wilderness to study Jewish law and wait for the coming of their Messiah, or savior, as promised in the Old Testament.Â
Isa 7:14 [OT] Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Immanuel means "God with us". The Son of God had come to dwell with, or tabernacle on earth with, His people.
John 1:14 [NT] And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father) full of grace and truth.
Jesus was a Jew. He observed Jewish faith and was well studied in its law. A lowly carpenter by trade, in his early thirties Jesus traveled between villages teaching in synagogues, healing people and performing miracles, news of which traveled swiftly. He challenged established religious leaders to repent from their self-righteous and hypocritical ways and to realize that the Kingdom of God is rooted in service and love.
Jesus taught during Roman rule of Augustus, its first emperor from 27 BC through 14 AD. Jesus urged purification of the Jewish religion with a moral code of love, charity and humility. His teachings stirred the hearts of people and His healings grew in influence and ever-increasingly high demand as word of His news spread.
This created an instability that Jewish authorities feared. Faithful men, known as disciples, followed Him. Jesus taught them about the “new covenant†that God was bringing to humanity because men had fallen into so much sin they’d lost the direct relationship with God they'd had in Old Testament days.
Jesus was put to death about 30 AD. His followers believed he rose three days later, proving that He was the Son of God. The Christian faith, unlike any other religion, hinges on historical events. An example includes eye-witness accounts as evidenced by Paul in I Corinthians 15:3-6.
“For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that He was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, He was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.â€
Manuscript studies point to this scripture being written within a few years after Christ’s death. Paul, born Greek, ends this passage with “most of whom are still living,†inviting people to confirm the facts for themselves. He wouldn’t have if he was trying to perpetrate a myth or fraud. It is the historical validity that gives Christians their belief and a genuine and eternal hope.
Â
The Roman Empire
The Roman Empire was “embroiled in myth†with archeological traces of early settlements dating back to 750 BC. The myths are based on both fiction and history in stories passed down through the years.
Roman mythology was an emphatic state religion consisting of rituals and ceremonies. Their myths were more practical than the Greek’s 
but they adopted most of the Greek deities.
Every Roman god served a purpose and had an office to fill. There were “divisions of labor†between them, some presiding over births; some over bakers and some over the bakers’ ovens. Every vocation and household function had presiding gods and goddesses.
The rise of Christianity in the Roman Empire caused people to start questioning what they thought they knew. By 392 AD, Christianity was the official religion. As it spread Christianity connected with larger themes in Roman history.
Christianity comforted social grievances in an empire marked by inequality, especially among the poor. Slaves, dispossessed farmers and impoverished city dwellers found hope in a religion that encouraged a goodness of morals and after-life rewards for living morally.
The Christian faith answered cultural needs that Roman values, which stressed political goals and ethics about living in the world, did not. It also brought political benefits to the Romans as their empire grew and consolidated. The new faith was seen as universal, open to all, whether people followed the Jewish faith or not.
Click map to enlarge for growth of the Roman Empire in the Mediterranean area and Israel's place in it (boxed).
Belief in Jesus spread among Jewish communities in the Middle East, the Roman Empire and beyond. When His disciples realized that He was not returning to earth to set up the Kingdom of God, they fanned out to spread the news, particularly around the easter Mediterranean area.
The predominant language of the day was Greek. Paul’s Greco-Roman culture helped to explain Christian beliefs in Greece and Italy as well as in the Middle East. Paul essentially created Christian theology as a set of intellectual principles; and some speculate that he emphasized women’s more subordinate role to men and the dangers of sexuality in the books of the New Testament.
By the 4th Century AD Christian writings were the only creative cultural expression of the Roman Empire. Theologians sought to explain issues brought up by the new religion; and to relate it to ethics and Greek philosophy. Just as the Roman Empire was in decline Christianity produced complex thought and elegant language, redirecting its culture and preserving earlier literary and philosophical achievements.
Christianity goes well beyond Rome and had more to do with opening a new era of history of the Mediterranean region than shaping the Roman Empire.
Â
Today’s Conflicts between the Middle East and Israel & The West
In the Bible’s Old Testament book of Genesis, chapter 17, God promised Abraham that he would become “the father of many nations.†Many today aren’t familiar with the divisions hinged on that promise.
Abraham’s wife, Sarah, could not bear children so she gave to her husband her Egyptian maiden, Hagar. Hagar birthed Abraham’s son, Ishmael. Many years later Sarah gave Abraham a son named Isaac (described in the scripture below).
Â
When dissention in the houshold grew, Hagar returned with her son to her homeland of Egpyt. By then Abraham and Sarah had located to Cannan (Israel), where they remained. Today Sarah’s descendants are Christian and Hagar’s are Muslim. Indeed Abraham was “the father of many nations.â€
Genesis 17 (OT, KJV excerpted): And when Abram was ninety years old and nine the LORD appeared and said, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect and I will make my covenant between me and thee and will multiply thee exceedingly and thou shalt be a father of many nations. Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.
And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee and I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.
And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house [and] which is not of thy seed. And God said unto Abraham, as for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be. And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her.
Then Abraham fell upon his face and laughed and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear? Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.
And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation. But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year. And he left off talking with him.Â
Â
Coming: What was Constantine the Great’s role in Christianity?
"From the time of Constantine onward, the worship of the Roman Catholic Church, in its forms and ceremonies, has been more clearly identified with the paganism of Ancient Rome, than with the religion of the New Testament. The customs of pagan religion were only baptized with Christian names."
 -Paganism Surviving in Christianity By Abram Herbert Lewis "The Control of Christianity by the State Under Constantine and his Successors," Chapter X; pg. 210
Â
UPDATED - CLICK HERE FOR NEXT ARTICLE:Â
Constantine & His Influence on Christianity
Â
More Reading:
Wise Geek, Bible Time, Got Questions, History of Religion, Judaism 101:Torah, BibleLight, Greek & Roman Religion, History of Christianity, Romans Empire, Cynric
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 103
The fall of the Roman Empire was due to the peoples morals was it not? How lavish a life style they led, and what a beautiful race full of talents.
The world is a much smaller place. The history brings full-circle what I'd learned from the Bible. I hope I did it justice, Biblical contextual history is not my forte' and it's something I don't want to misstate.
The pacifist nature of early Christianity and the courage and creative energy it gave believers throughout history is downplayed or ignored completely. Meanwhile, the fact that Mohammed began Islam as a military leader and conqueror of Mecca and surrounding lands and often brutalized those who opposed or resisted him is ignored in favor of emphasizing later pacifism once Islam was put on the defensive.
Of course in the current prevailing Marxist view (thank you two generations of American reeducators, and one generation of media revisionists) religion is "the opiate of the masses," and its appeal to the poor by emphasizing the equality of souls depending on behavior and not birthright is seen as an effort by the rapacious "bourgeoisie" who "invented" Christianity to tell the poor it's ok if you are downtrodden and miserable in this life, because in the next you will know paradise.
I started this expecting to come across Constantine. By the time I was done his name hadn't shown up so I searched him to see if I'd missed something in his era (circa 300-something A.D.)? O-M-G. Talk about brute force reigning, he was abominable! I recognized right away that he replicated the materialism of Catholicism, too. He deserved his own article. But all that to say, very clearly living under the Roman Empire was a brutally horrific existence and men like Constantine used politics to warp Christianity into a bad name, even then.
I'm not sure if I understand your closing statement, whether it's offensive to me as Christian or not :)? I think you're referring to how Christianity is manipulated for political purposes today? And that was another remarkable thing that came from this research ... it is astonishing how the trials and tribulations of the people are "the same stuff, different day." Change the names and it could be about the times we live right now.
That is also what is so very onerous about Obamacare, because for those in power now, dominated as they are by a Marxist outlook, the criterion used to determine who gets care and who does not is determined by the individual's value to the collective rather than to himself or herself. The full implications of that, demanding potentially unlimited sacrifice of the individual for benefit of The State, is what Communist education never explains.
I don't know if it's me or if you're pruning your writing style, but you've done this remarkabley so (for me) a few times lately. Thank you again Eagle. I always look forward to, highly regard and admire your critiques :).
Being a young and malleable religion Constantine saw a way to mould the religion into a set of rules that would guide the faithful. He and the commission he selected therefore chose the books that would constitute the bible. In went all those where man was supreme and women were chattels, out went anything that deviated from this viewpoint. One of the gnostic gospels to get the chop this way was that of Mary Magdalene and to ensure this stayed tainted she was given the name prostitute though that was far from the truth.
From that moment on the bible was a book used to control people by a group of men who formed the Roman Catholic Church and whom two millennia later still refuse to accept women into the church and who still exercise massive control . No birth control is allowed despite a large proportion of the Catholic World being in poor areas. The Church must be glorified by creating more adherents.
It would be pointless me arguing the truth of those books used to form the bibl since I was not around at the time of Jesus's death and rebirth. I have no doubt in Paul's belief in it though.I'd also say it's just as possible he didn't die on the cross but was brought down in time, held somewhere until he was recovered then showed himself to the disciples for a short time before disappearing to safety. Since there have been stories for years of Jesus living in France maybe that's what happened.
What we are left with is a book full of stories by various people some lacking in any education put together by a group with a lot of self interest who left out what may have been more relevant books because they may have told a different story about Mary and her place in the story.
None of us were there when Jesus supposedly said on this rock I build my church and meant Paul rather than Mary.
I do recall a fellow about 1600s (I think) who was so fed up with corruption of the Catholic Church in England he gathered the best of the best scholars and they spent years translating the Latin, Greek & Hebrew texts into our KJV of the Bible. Is this how the omitted books came to be, if anyone knows?
I haven't read David's reply to you yet, only to say that it's critical people learn enough about these topics to draw their own well-informed conclusions. I say that only because of your encouraging first sentence. Thanks for inspiring me, that article may come right after Constantine's.
Speaking as another non believer, I have read there are in the region of eighty known gospels and apocalypses (I'm sure you know gospel means truth; apocalypse means revelation)
Some of them contain some very interesting reading for the sceptically minded (as does the gospel of John.)
An interesting point is that the early Popes took on the Ponifex Maximus, which had previously belonged to the Emperor in his role as high priest of the pagan Sol Invicta cult.
The English have always been really awkward buggers.
The first translation of the Bible into English was the Lollard Bible (rather amusingly, last time I mentioned this one of those self appointed guardians of acedemic orthodoxy told me I was an idiot and everybody knew John Wycliffe's translation was the first - if only he'd taken a moment to check he would have leaned John Wycliffe was the leader of the Lollard movement) Wycliffe did not actually translate the bible, he hired a scholar called Miles Copeland for the job. Both the King James Version and the Geneva Bible evolved out of the Lollard translation.
Being a young and malleable religion Constantine saw a way to mould the religion into a set of rules that would guide the faithful.
Do you refer to a formal "set of rules?" If so, what are they called? Who were the 'Druids?
Constantine selected the books that would compose the Bible??' And by this do you refer to the Latin, Greek & Hebrew texts; or just the language of Rome; or another?
From that moment on the bible was a book used to control people ...
All in good will, I find this to be a wholly inaccurately gross misstatement. Please clarify how you perceive that as so - outside or above & beyond what I also find less than accurate about subverting women.
The common understanding, or better stated, the one unknown woman who washed Jesus' feet (there were two, I think) is recorded as being a prostitute. That is assumed by whomever for whatever reason to be Mary Magdalene, who converted from prostituion to Chrsitinaity. Christ uses her event to make a most valid and uplifting example of Mary Magdalene, she is not maligned by it in the least, assuming it was even her. That is a far cry from what you suggest of the Bible as whole. Perhaps Catholicism royaly screwed that up by attributing it to Mary Magdalene, but God didn't.
That's a very good example of why WE must find our own well-founded interpretations of God's word and not allow a corporate Church dictate it to us.
To avoid making replies too lengthy, I'll add a new original comment for more questions. Please check below as replies grow in length.
I don't think this was answered (?), if you know: So was it Wycliffe/Lollard that chose to omit the omitted books?
I did not know those translations of gospels and apocalypses.
The claim that Constantine used Christianity as a political tool - thus begetting its popularity today - reminds that Henry VIII did similar.
Some say Henry created The Church of England to wrest power from the Pope - in order to be able to grant himself a divorce, and marry his mistress, Anne Boleyn. Perhaps the most supreme human example of "holy matrimony"? ;-]
Another source says he only made himself head of The Catholic Church in England, and that his daughter, Elizabeth I, founded The Church of England.
One of our English sources should be able to set the record straight for these rebellious colonies?
From Wikianswers:
The additional books found in the Catholic Bible are Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and I & II Maccabees.
The official Bible of the Catholic Church is probably the Vulgate, a fifth century Latin translation largely the work of St. Jerome. The Duoay-Rheims version, which is an English translation of the Vulgate, served as the Catholic English Bible at the time of the translation of the King James Version (aka the Authorized Version), published in 1611, under the direction of King James I of England. Since the time of Henry VIII, when the Church of England split with the Catholic Church, the Geneva Bible and the Bishop's Bible were being used. King James wanted a new, better translation to make us of the contemporary Bible scholarship going on at the time and to provide uniformity to the English liturgy. The King James Version, while drawing freely from previous English Bibles, stands alone as a work of literary beauty. It is also pretty faithful to the original Greek and Hebrew scriptures (though not without errors, which were corrected in the later Revised Versions). Early King James Bibles included the Apocrypha, though most Protestant KJV's of today do not. Modern Catholic versions of the Bible in English include the Jerusalem Bible, first translated into French, and the New American Bible.
I've just done a long answer for Fren so I'll try to keep this short.
The origins on Christianity in England are very cloudy. Officially it arrived with St. Columba aka Columbanus early in the 5th century but there was already a flourishing Christian community, The Culdees or Celtic Christians in the north, west, Scotland and Ireland.
The Popes demanded that the Celts defer to Romein all things ,the dispute came to a head around mid 7th century when to avoid war the Celtic Church agreed the Pope would be spiritual leader but contended that an English King ruled by consent of the people not by divine ordination. The King of England could not be the Pope's vassal.
Things stayed that way (in spite of that bastard King John's efforts to stitch us up) until Henry VIII wanted to dump Katherine of Aragon because she could not produce a male heir.
"Accept me as supreme ruler and you can be rid of the Infanta," the Pope told Henry.
"He's right," said the nobles, "You get involved with any jiggery popery and your head will be on as pike on London Bridge, that's how rid of her you'll be."
So that is how Henry was nudged into breaking away from the Catholic Church. It is true however that Henry's church was Roman Catholic in all but name and protestantism only gained ascendency under Elizabeth 1.
Ian, didn't I understand correctly that you are not a believer? There is a valuable difference between being a historian of how Bible books and versions came to be; and understanding what the Bible says and its applications. But curosity prevails in how you came to all of this knowledge, being an unbeliever?
There are also, the Gnostic Gospels, the Sanhedrin& Talmuds of the Jews, and the so-called "Lost books of the Bible, and Forgotten Books of Eden”.
In one of the so-called Banned Gospels, is a claim that when Christ was like 10 or 12, Joseph, a carpenter, cut a board too short, so Christ made it longer for him ............................ In fact, all the so-called omitted Gospels that I have read (dozens and dozens) are full of really stupid stuff.
I have read numerous times ALL the Books from the Greek (orthodox), Slavic, Serbian (even a slight difference there), and Latin Vulgate versions of the Old Testament (not a single difference in any of those New Testaments).
Nothing of any importance was there. No differing accounts, no new accounts, nothing - all repetition of what is in the KJV.
From what I've seen so far it looks like there was good cause for the omitted books to be set aside; and doing so was purely to keep the Bible's message in good form, not omitting anything of material relevance. Is that your impression?
The history of the English Bible is very cloudy and there are many differing versions of what happened. This is largely because translating The Bible into English had been deemed heresy by The Vatican and we all know what happened to heretics back then. Here's a good site with a summary of events.
You are right to be wary of wiki pages, I only use them as a source if I've read similar info elsewhere or heard it on a TV documentary.
But mistakes are easy. I gave you a piece of info that is wrong by being incomplete, I said some sources say Tyndale's was the first translation into English. Not so, Tyndale's was the first translation to be printed and published. The earlier Wycliffe / Lollard translation was copied by hand.
Thanks for the link, too, it looks like a good one. I might use that in carrying this theme forward, always nice to have a recommendation by someone as learned as yourself. What a job, writing the Bible by hand. If nothing else be said they were certainly devoted. Not a remarkable "mistake" IMO but I appreciate the correction, too.
I'm confused about something and you may able to answer it (if not so voluminous it's impractical). Hopefully I'm not asking what's already been answered? What New Testament books if any were omitted from the KJV Bible, aside from Mary Magdalene's?
There are tons of omitted books from the NT for various reasons.
But they are omitted in both the Catholic (in all forms) and the Protestant.
The old story that James omitted the part of the new testement that denied him divorce is pure fiction. All books omitted by the KJV are OT.
Having read the 'missing' ones repeatedly, they appear to be re3dundant - a straw man for the real hatred, which was an Eng;lish version, allowing more to be able to read it.
I remember in 4th grade, the Gideon people came to my school to hand out NT Bibles - they had one approved by the Roman Catholic church, yet my frined who is Catholic, refused it to the point of tears and screaming when they insisted that it was approved. Their Priest had not told them that it was OK - they still followed the old rule, tht just having a bible was a sin, causing you to be denied the Sacreaments, Ex-communicated and doomed to Hell.
You've made two conflicting statements and this is something I really want to understand if you'll bear with me: You said There are tons of omitted books from the NT then you said All books omitted by the KJV are OT. What am I missing?
Thanks again, Jesse, your information has really helped clarify some things.
But the difference between the Catholic Bible, and the KJV and other english translations, is all OT.
To put it another way - LONG before there was even such a thing as Protestants, and before there was a defined Church, there were tons of writings considered to be holy works.
St Jerome is usually credited, with defining what was called the Latin Vulgate. It was officially declared to be the "Bible" in 397 at the Council of Carthage.
Prior to that - there were all these writings, that some believed should be held as official Holy works, and others did not.
There are also tons of newly found writings, that some believe are also Gospels that were "lost".
But the KJV and the official Catholic LV are the same in the NT, with only the difference in OT.
Hope that gets it? lol
The Gospel of Mary, is one of those "discovered" or 'Lost' books - around the turn of the 19th century.
As too why it was omitted in the 4th Century is anybodies guess. May well have been a sexist thing, or may not have been.
I take great issue with the above desciption of Constatine .
First of all, he was indeed a Christian - some experts claim from childhood, as his mother was a Christian - others claim it happened later in life. He did not determine which books are in todays bible - as I noted, that was done in 397 - Constantine died in 337 .................
Also - the Rock the Church was built on, is Christ talking directly to Peter (Simon), not Paul and not Mary Magdeline.
Keep in mind also, that when we are talking about
"Catholic" it is more accurately Roman Catholic - with the Pope in Rome.
There is also the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Greek Orthodox is one part of it. Many refer to it as a 'Catholic Church' as well.
Originally one Church, with 5 different 'Sees' (Local leader in each area), and one was always designated as the first among equals.
Disputes went on for 6 or 7 hundred years, and there was a final split between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic - each claiming a direct line of authority from Christ, each claiming to be the "True" Church.
Eastern Orthodox, still operate under a Synod of Bishops, with one designated as First among Equals - they have no pope. They believe the Leader is not reign Supreme, is never infallible, and is not the "Head" of the church - that only Christ is the Head.
Do you refer to the quote in the article? If so and after just completing the second article (Constantine and His Influence on Christianity), I can see why. I'd only seen snippets about him prior to diving into that research and regretted jumping to my own premature conclusions. There's more to that but, as you said, it gets complicated.
Thanks for adding what you did. You explained so much to me. And I agree with what you've explained here, understanding much better after having researched the second article. Thank you so much, Jesse.
If you would like additional suggestions for research - write me (you have my real email, or here on Gather). I have been involved with/studied a few dozen denominations, and have joined at least 8 .
I have studied Catholicism extensively, as well as its history from both their viewpoint, and the protestant views (Raised Presbyterian and was a practicing member of the RC Church for 15 years).
Not saying I can give you definitive answers at all - but may offer insight into other things to research on the related topics.
From what little I read of Constantine when his name didn't pop up in this era as I expected and thinking I'd missed something, he was a most horrid dasdardly and brutal fellow. The article quote seems to attest to that. And oddly, doing this research, I was reminded of just how much the Catholic Church appears to mimic Roman paganism with their idols and pomp and circumstance et al (no offense to anyone practicing, just an honest observation).
Thanks for encouraging me, Big Mama.
One article in the research - to which I alluded here - suggested Paul played a big part in 'administering' Christianity, including women taking a subserviant role to men. I like Paul :). To my knowledge he was a loyal and good man with no personal motives to loft himself or men at women's expense, but more as a caretaker to protect them from themselves. He's is another person I hope to research, I want to know him better and especially given this suggested role.
About a women Pope, the Bible tells us (I'm the worst at remembering/quoting scripture) that women are not to teach men. Of course the Bible establishes a whole heirarchy for men and women, none of which I find offensive but, to the contrary, most practical. That's another issue I need to research. I'm confident Paul is not the only prophet who wrote of it.
Thank you, friend who inspired this, I've enjoyed the learning and look forward to more :).
He basically believed all men should be celibate, but - ok - if you really have to give in, at least be married ............
Romans
I Corinthians
II Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
I Thessalonians
II Thessalonians
Philemon
Not being a good history or Bible contextual student when I was young, I found it most interesting, too, how this history plays such an important role in what we're facing today int he world. It brought into clear focus where Israel is coming from, where they'd been, and how the Middle East is such a big part of their history.
In this day and age, I think we all could use some understanding of our religious roots...
Yes, I so agree.
From that moment on the bible was a book used to control people ... whom two millennia later still refuse to accept women into the church ... No birth control is allowed despite a large proportion of the Catholic World being in poor areas. The Church must be glorified by creating more adherents.
As I've drawn attention to before, it is our individual repsonsibility to understand God's word. It is man's fault if he follows a corporate Church that dictates against (adds to or takes from) God's word. These are MEN's failings, not God's and certainly not the Faith's as given to us in the Bible.
I'd also say it's just as possible he didn't die on the cross but was brought down in time, held somewhere until he was recovered then showed himself to the disciples for a short time before disappearing to safety. Since there have been stories for years of Jesus living in France maybe that's what happened.
Firstm, they saw Him ascend into Heaven. There are eye-witness accounts of that. The article addresses a small portion of those. And the premise your propose now is so much more reasonable under the brutally cruel Roman reign you've described many times over here and elsewhere with great disdain? Given Jesus' phenomenal threat to political leaders of that day -- which IS what brought about His crucifixtion is the first place -- they're going to go on break and let that happen? Yours is bizarre speculation more unbelievable that the truth for many reasons, David. I've never heard of Jesus living in France and at the risk of politicing this discussion, which I do Not want to do, it's be considerably more typical of the French to rumor it than for Jesus to do it. Om,itting the fact that France wasn't even part of the Roman Empire until circa 180 A.D. if I understand correctly.
What we are left with is a book full of stories by various people some lacking in any education put together by a group with a lot of self interest who left out what may have been more relevant books because they may have told a different story about Mary and her place in the story.
"a group with a lot self interest?" And you know that how, David? Do you have any basis for drawing that conclusion or for assuming "some uneducated men" are incapable of recording their personal experiences as they live them? Or is this just a more comfortable 'story' to believe?
None of us were there when Jesus supposedly said on this rock I build my church and meant Paul rather than Mary.
Exactly. None of us were there. Everything you're proposing is subjective yet you state it as if it's infallable in the face of what is documented history (the Bible) to some reasonable extent. There's a reason that rock is believed to be Paul. I can't recite it off-hand but I'm sure someone here can and if not I'll come back with that.
I am confused why you find, in particular, the women issue to be such a atrocious one. I simply do not understand why that sticks in your craw so, as it obviously does? What is it about the women's issue that's such a burr under saddle, please? Myself a woman I can see no great harm done to women and as I've said many times now, I find that heirarchy in the Bible to be most unoffensive and a most practical one in application. Then again, I've no aspiration to be a Pope. Someone you know does or did?
That either shows that the bible and the church were shanghai'd to be used for the benefit of certain people only, and Religious leaders at that, or that god doesn't have much in the way of man management skills. I keep hearing that he/she/it gave us free will in which case it seems odd he'd pay us any mind at all. Considering one of his son's maxims is you don't visit the sins of the father on the son , with the number of innocent that die each year I'd say he doesn't look at all.
Yes I was being supercilious with the account of Jesus not dying on the cross. What I was trying to point out was we were never allowed to see thwe Gnostic Gospels to see what they said. Maybe Mary's account was closer to an unpalatable truth since she and Jesus were close, after all she was allowed to wash his feet. But, France and the Roman empire has traded for centuries before that since France is but a short distance from Spain and Spain lies opposite North Africa. I believe one Town still has a festival to honour Mary who went to live there and Joseph of Aramithea was supposed to have visited Britain.
Jesus was indeed a threat to the Political leaders of the day in Jerusalem and was dealt with accordingly, as had been other Messiahs before him. But it was the Romans who oversaw the execution and the King of Judea and the priests of the Temple who wanted Jesus's death. The Romans weren't all that bothered by him at that point.
No, a lack of formal education wasn't unusual for those times Fren. There were fishermen in the group and what need of education have they. Someone else tells their stories for them, probably after their death but maybe not. All people want their story to appeal, to sound better. I do it myself with my blogs all the time. The group with a lot of self interest is those choosing which books are best to use for the bible centuries later.
No Fren, I am not stating my word as infallable in the face of what is documented history. I offer conjecture because we know for a fact that Constantine kept books out of the bible, because some of those books were by other Disciples. Because the books of the bible have been found to have been written at different times so we know not all are contemporary and because it's fact that the book that is the most holy of Christianity, the most followed in the world after the Quran has been used by the church and the faithful to commit some of the worst atrocities ever. I never deny anyone there right of belief but I dislike people to follow blindly so they can't improve life.
To answer your last question. Be confused no longer.It sticks in my craw as you put it because I like the idea of equal opportunities. I like the idea that with a woman's hand in the church maybe there would have been less bloodshed. Women sometimes see the cost in children rather than just squaddies. I know of no-one who wants to be Pope but I'm sure a woman might sell off some of the Vatican treasure to build wells and end a famine before telling someone to leave the contraceptives at home.
I find myself thinking you're looking for some devious reason behind my thinking. I assure you there isn't any. But I'm quite happy to call it a day if the subject matter is distasteful to you. Oh , maybe a small fib, I have quite a liking for the Cathars who thought hat shared knowledge was important and dealt with Jews, Turks and anyone else equally as well as living in a good way with each other.
David, you say: No body is laying the blame for this at God's door Fren. Then you say several things like this: But..During this time so much death has been created in his name..or that god doesn't have much in the way of man management skills..with the number of innocent that die each year I'd say he doesn't look at all. You do lay blames on God, David. You may not wish to, but you do.
I'm of the distinct impression that when you refer to "religious leaders" or the church or religion in kind, you are speaking most about what you know of Catholicism in particular? That is the religion you are most familiar with, am I correct? Have you ever practiced faith of any kind? This discussion bears knowing from what perspective you're speaking and there has to be one.
Of course the Bible and Church are shang-hai'd, every day of every week, the term shang-hai'd going to the very heart of who's doing it and that going to the very heart of why. Is there any 'power' in life that is not shang-hai'd by man? By Man, David. That doesn't make it God's doing or misdoing or undoing or lack of doing. If we all lived according to the creed of the Bible that He's given us, there wouldn't be any shang-hai-ing, would there? He's not responsible for our decisions to corrupt ourselves.
Considering one of his son's maxims is you don't visit the sins of the father on the son, with the number of innocent that die each year I'd say he doesn't look at all. Again, you position this as God being responsible for deaths that man causes. You fail to make the contextural distinction that Jesus speaks.
Jesus speaks that maxim in terms of God's forgiveness of sins and that is in direct correlation to what was taught when man lived under the OT, which Jesus came to replace. It's not about those who die dying because their father committed sins. It's about God bringing a new covenant (Jesus) that does away with the old and under which the sons were held accountable in the afterlife for their fathers' sins.
"Sins" do not "cause" worldly death (for pure sake of punishment for having sinned - I know some believe so, I do not). My understanding is that it's one's salvation after death to which Jesus speaks in this maxim.
Because these get lengthy I'll pick up with the rest of your reply separately ... .
David, you said, What I was trying to point out was we were never allowed to see the Gnostic Gospels to see what they said. But we are allowed to see them, else we wouldn't be having this disucssion. It's interesting if Mary went to live in France, I hadn't heard that. Does that come from man's conclusion or is there evidence (just curious).
To imply Romans -- who concurred and carried out crucifying a man of Jesus' renown caliber & popularity in the festively showmanship manner they did, to say nothing of them being a people with long standing propensities for latching onto fanciful mythological multiple-god extremes -- dismissed care for whether Jesus died on that cross or not is far fatched to say the least. But you're right. That is supercilious fodder. I'm sure the priests wanted Jesus' death for obvious reasons of power and humility; and assuming what you say is true, the King of Judae similarly so, given the Jews Promised Land was conveniently under his reign at the time.
As for, No, a lack of formal education wasn't unusual for those times Fren. There were fishermen in the group and what need of education have they. "Need of education" has no bearing whatsoever on an individual's ability to relay facts accurately nor do I find it appropriate to assume everyone was out to make a name for themself. That's a bit jaded. I'd wager you're a man, though, who believes everything he's told about about hieroglyphics on the wall of cave.
Believing scriptures to be Godly inspired, thus the men relaying them performing reasonable due diligence to do them justice, it's more probable they are the closest man can come to accurately relaying those events. Just because you don't believe so, David, does not make my believing so any less reasonable. These are empty speculative arguments that serve no purpose other than to downplay God. You may do it with blogs all of the time, I do not. You profess not to be Godly inspired. I profess to be so inclined and that's why I do not. So I'd say it depends on which men you're talking about.
To be continued, I suppose, haven't read the rest yet ... .
David, still continuing from your earlier reply, this should do it (for that one) lol. You wrote, I like the idea that with a woman's hand in the church maybe there would have been less bloodshed. I tend to agree with that to the extent that even if women were in the church I'm not sure how much power they're would've have. But I find us to be a kinder, gentler sort. On the other hand, when it comes to things like war and making tough decisions, we tend to be too much so.
I find myself thinking you're looking for some devious reason behind my thinking. I assure you there isn't any. No, not at all. I'm trying to understand your vantage point. With sincere due respect, you have talked about the women issue incessantly, so it stood out as a particularly sensitive one and I wondered why.
If you're weary of the subject, David, feel free to pull out. I was under the impression you wanted to address this in more detail thus the reason for the article. "Distasteful to me?" No, I don't know why you'd suggest that.
Mary going to live in France, and giving birth to Christs offspring, is the entire basis for what many believe, in terms of the Knights Templar, and that child being the Holy Grail.
The book and movie (DaVinci Code) follow that thought line pretty well actually from what I understand of it.
I dont mean that in a snide way at all, just the only way I can resolve it in my head.
I think there is great creedence to the theory, but who knows?
I certainly understand why Catholics see it as blasphomous heresy - they believe Joeseph and Mary stayed celibate their whole lives. Basically they see sex as a necessary evil.
Hence the reason the "Religious" (Priests, Nuns, Monks, etc) are all celbate. Believing to be celebate is more Godly (as Paul said).
I always thought Catholic Church leaders remained celibate because of the Bible saying the church is "the Bride of Christ," coupled with being a symbol of exceptional dedication. Hmmm. Thanks again, very interesting.
A couple of popular misconceptions btw - Catholicsw are3 not told to pqray to Mary perse. They are taught in intercessory prayer of not only humans, but "angels and Saints" the greatest among saints being Mary, Mother of God. They are asking Mary to pray for them. Many will say pray to Mary, but it is actually simply an expression, that deoes not mean whjat most think it does.
Also, they do NOT believe in a place called "Limbo" where babies not yet baptised go after death. It was a theory presented, but basically determined to be practically heretical and maybe blasphomous.
I want to say it was Augustine that brought the subject up. There were some Orders of Priests/Monks etc that picked up on it and spread the idea - but it was never a belief of the "Church".
The Celibacy ios both what you thought, and what I said - that Celibacy is 'preferred' (as Paul said), and therefore is more 'Godly' to marry the church/God, and not a human ...... a division of loyalty is believed to exist otherwise - a total devotion to Church being more "holy".
BTW - never underestimate the decisions of Vatican Council II in 1950.
It changed a TON of teachings beliefs, dogmas, tradtions and tenets of the RC Church.
Mary's Assumption for one, was never official till then - it also ended the practice of fasting from meat on fridays, Latin in Mass, the Priest facing the Congregation more, female Lectors, no more female 'head cover' required in church - it goes on and on and on.
Funny - many swmall parishes STILL do not have all the changes implemented lol.
Now, with my personal understanding with the history of the Bible or Christianity, I have always taken a pretty simple approach with that part of my faith. While I love to learn of the origin of the Bible and the various views and interpretations, I tend to keep my daily faith on a far more simple level, and I do so for a reason. My faith is my personal relationship with God, and as simple as that statement may sound, it is the very foundation of all that comes with that faith. The reason for my emphasis on my personal relationship with God is that it is the only part of my faith that I can truly control, or even completely understand. Sharing that faith is a part of the plan, and it is an actual duty, as a man of faith to share my personal relationship with God.
Usually when I discuss faith, I speak of the individual relationship with God, and the components of that faith as it applies to me, or to others as individuals. My personal reasoning for this is that I see collective thoughts on faith, the Bible, or God as moving from that individual relationship with God, or the actual foundation of the faith of either myself or another individual. If you have monitored some of the posts on this very site, especially as it relates to those who choose to discredit our faith, there is a common denominator with all of those posts. They speak of faith, Christianity, or of God, Himself as if everyone is exactly the same in their chosen path as they continue their daily lives with that faith. I have recently said many times that you can memorize the Bible, word for word, and yet never be able to understand or explain our faith if you do not actually live by that faith. It is not learned, it is a faith that must be founded with God, and lived based on the heart of the individual. My focus is always with my personal relationship, and I very seldom stray from that focus unless I am sharing my faith with those who choose to allow me to do so. I hope that makes sense, and my main point when I speak of our faith is to emphasis the strength of that individual relationship with God, and to first know that this is the very foundation of all there is as it relates to the faith of the individual.
When those without faith speak of Christianity, they tend to speak of us as a collective body, and that is very misleading in the sense that it groups us all together as being exactly the same. Just as I do not judge others as being exactly the same, I do not expect to be judged by the actions or behaviors of others, as it relates to our faith. We are all on different levels and that is the reason that I place such an emphasis on the individual relationship with God, and where that individual may stand with God in his/her own life. To me, that is a far more accurate way to view our faith, as it applies to us as individuals.
I realize that I strayed from the actual premise of your post, but I wanted to speak of my personal foundation before getting more into the history of the issue of faith. I may return to write of my thoughts on the history of Christianity, but not until I get a little more coffee into my system. Bless you, my dear friend, and again, I thank you for posting this.
I have always taken a pretty simple approach with that part of my faith.
I agree. I've seen so many people over-intellectualize or over-complicate what His word says. God puts it out there in reasonably simple terms and guides our spirits in taking proper meaning from it - if we rely on Him to do that.
They speak of faith, Christianity, or of God, Himself as if everyone is exactly the same in their chosen path ...
I'm not sure who 'they' are but I find that true with unbelievers and it seems clear that's because they are unbelieving, in the sense of not understanding what a personal relationship with God is.
[it's a faith] that must be founded with God, and lived based on the heart of the individual ...
Absolutely. I agree. It makes perfect sense to me.
When those without faith speak of Christianity, they tend to speak of us as a collective body,
In many cases IMO, that is done to serve a point someone wants to make, self-serving if you will, be it political or otherwise, sterotyping Chrsitians rather than admit any goodness of Christianity. Many, too, are wholly ignorant of Christianity outside the horrendously misconstrued political box that media puts on it. Not unlike any other political issue that's skewed to fit an agenda, just as with the Roman emperors and other less desirables down through the time.
I understand exactly where you're coming from, Vic, we share similar convictions about personal faith. My pleasure to post :).
As it shows here, it seems quite plain, but the actual layout of the program is pretty cool...
John 3:16
(BBE) For God had such love for the world that he gave his only Son, so that whoever has faith in him may not come to destruction but have eternal life.
(CEV) God loved the people of this world so much that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who has faith in him will have eternal life and never really die.
(KJV) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
(KJV+) For1063 God2316 so3779 loved25 the3588 world,2889 that5620 he gave1325 his848 only begotten3439 Son,5207 that2443 whosoever3956 believeth4100 in1519 him846 should not3361 perish,622 but235 have2192 everlasting166 life.2222
From what I did read, it seems Mary takes a more typical woman's approach, in some cases repeating what the Biblical books of the men already say in much greater detail, indicating no need to be repitious. And admittedly the men themselves did a good job of that (Matthew, Mark, Luke & John et al :).
Some of Mary's verbiage involved contentions about her being a woman, the prospect that Jesus might've taken her into His confidences where he did not some of the men; and her regrets about that, yada, yada ... all going to divisions of contention rather than unity.
In regards of those natures, I can understand why her book might've been omitted in favor of others more consistent with Jesus' message? I don't know the heriarchy of men and women in real life during those times, but assuming men were even more dominant than today, it stand all the more to reason?
1) But they were grieved. They wept greatly, saying, How shall we go to the Gentiles and preach the gospel of the Kingdom of the Son of Man? If they did not spare Him, how will they spare us?
2) Then Mary stood up, greeted them all, and said to her brethren, Do not weep and do not grieve nor be irresolute, for His grace will be entirely with you and will protect you.
3) But rather, let us praise His greatness, for He has prepared us and made us into Men.
4) When Mary said this, she turned their hearts to the Good, and they began to discuss the words of the Savior.
5) Peter said to Mary, Sister we know that the Savior loved you more than the rest of woman.
6) Tell us the words of the Savior which you remember which you know, but we do not, nor have we heard them.
7) Mary answered and said, What is hidden from you I will proclaim to you.
8) And she began to speak to them these words: I, she said, I saw the Lord in a vision and I said to Him, Lord I saw you today in a vision. He answered and said to me,
9) Blessed are you that you did not waver at the sight of Me. For where the mind is there is the treasure.
It's clear the other Disciples acknowledge Mary as better beloved and knowing more of the Lord.
And again in Chapter 9
3) Peter answered and spoke concerning these same things.
4) He questioned them about the Savior: Did He really speak privately with a woman and not openly to us? Are we to turn about and all listen to her? Did He prefer her to us?
5) Then Mary wept and said to Peter, My brother Peter, what do you think? Do you think that I have thought this up myself in my heart, or that I am lying about the Savior?
6) Levi answered and said to Peter, Peter you have always been hot tempered.
7) Now I see you contending against the woman like the adversaries.
8) But if the Savior made her worthy, who are you indeed to reject her? Surely the Savior knows her very well.
9) That is why He loved her more than us. Rather let us be ashamed and put on the perfect Man, and separate as He commanded us and preach the gospel, not laying down any other rule or other law beyond what the Saviour said.
10) And when they heard this they began to go forth to proclaim and to preach
Again they proclaim that Mary knows Jesus better and is closer to him. There's mention of Peter's hot head. Would Jesus have made Peter the rock of his church if he were so afflicted? Or to put it another way, might there not be a possible alternative to our perception if we're only allowed to view some not all of the books.?
This is not a conspiracy theory since we KNOW the books for the bible were selected. It's not a new theme for a book which will eventually have Tom Hanks star in the film. It's not an attempt to move you away from your god, it's just to acquaint people with facts they didn't know before.
Though it could be, I don't recall any of the males writing in these ways? How many times throughout does Mary hold herself special, then drawing attention to the conflict it created, assuming she was the author (regardless of speaking in third person)? She even writes about jealously toward her, which is in direct conflict with Christ's teachings. Would Christ have made Mary the rock of His chruch if she were as vain as she comes across? As I know Christ, I think not.
Does Mary ever say what it was that Jesus shared with her that He did not share with the others?
I'm not arguing your position, David. But I do have serious aversions to how Mary lofts herself if these be her writings. It goes against all that is repeatedly taught to us in scripture, in Jesus' own words. If what's been suggested is true, perhaps that's why Paul structured the woman/man heirarchy as he's said to have done? I came into this a clean slate, open to appreciating Mary through your equality concerns, if not agreeing with them. But IMO, in these writings she is beginning to look like a trouble maker among men?
you asked somewhere about Mary M in France. (I've lost the comment now) I'll tell you about something even more interesting in a minute, but first, because the world communicated very differently before the invention of the printing press all evidence is a bit sketchy. The evidence for Mary M, Jesus and their children is mostly legend and folklore but around the Languedoc - Rousillon department of France and the Catalan province of Spain there is plenty to suggest there was some substance to the stories.
Likewise the time Jesus spent in Britain. Celtic historian Gildas Britacnnicus wrote in the 5th century that it was "known with certainty" Jesus was in Britain in 37AD. Minster Church (pictures)
Gildas could have meant that in a symbolic sense but plenty of other legends from that era support it. Also there is the question of Minster Churches. A minster, as opposed to a Cathedral or simply a grand old church, is a centre of worship that was visited by an apostle. (Durham and York Minsters) Wiki is totally wrong on this one, giving the definition as the main church of a Bishop's seat (that's a Cathedral) or the church of a monastic community (that's an Abbey). Don't get carried away with that definition though, it's possible that places where people who became saints worked were designated ministers.
Glastonbury Minster (see above link for Gildas) is ruined now but many medieval cathedrals bearing the title Minster are still in use as tourist attractions and places of worship.
I'm not familiar with the scenario you present about Mary Magdalene so forgive me for what might seem like silly questions or observations to you: I'm unclear if you're suggesting Christ lived following His crucifixion and went to France with Mary (as David alluded)? If you're referring to Mary going to France on her own, after His death and perhaps with His child, that would be interesting to work through. If it were evidenced that Christ was in Britian in 37 A.D., that wouldn't necessarily go to being after His crucifixion, again, IF that's what you're suggesting?
It's a pleasant prospect to think Christ had a child/children and He being of 'man' it's not beyond reason. It is highly improbable that He would've disavowed His teachings about marrying, if what you suggest is Mary traveled there with His child out of wedlock?
A practical question from my admittedly limited perspective is, if France wasn't part of the Roman Empire until circa 150-250 A.D., is it really practical that Mary could have or would have traveled there? I've tried look-ups around 30 A.D. and don't find much about France's government or religious composition then?
Thank you for first hand explanations about ministers, cathedrals, monasteries, and abbeys - I would never have known and they are important differences. So it seems we're left with legends?
I'm not disputing you but thinking out loud: Did "Gildas Britacnnicus" say by"what certainty" that was known? Seems evidence is always the catch. I don't know of him but the article you linked to his name, written in 2009, comments and still seems skeptical: "Dr Strachan believes it is 'plausible' Jesus came to England for his studies."
The Dr. refers to not much being known about Jesus until He was 30. That's in conflict with the Bible placing Jesus in the Roman synagogues, teaching and challenging priests beyond their seasoned knowledge, as a young man, estimated by scholars as early as 12-13 if I recall? I think that's why 12-13 is considered the baptism age, the age of knowing right from wrong. His knowledge beyond his young age is part of the renown that drew followers to Him. And clearly, that being the case, He spent a lot of years doing that. My point is, between this Dr.'s skpetism in 2009 and seemingly wrong about Christ's background, how much does the Dr. really know; or is he just selling movies?
Perhaps irrelevant but I'm curious why Joseph, Christ's father, would've traveled to England "for tin" when he was a carpenter? I haven't yet understood who the Druids were, if that shows my ignorance of history so be it :). Protestant all of my life, I'm not familair with the saint, St. Augustine, but the two I found in look ups were between 300-600 A.D., which causes me to ask what "the (Catholic) Church" did with that information, if anything? It would seem from the article, nothing? And wouldn't that be odd if you had cause to think you'd found a church built by Jesus? Or is that based on its architectural determinations alone, which goes back to wishing I understood France's government and religious composition circa 30 A.D.
Thanks for being patient with my inquiring mind :).
This is where it gets difficult for someone like me who only has an interest in how European society developed in an era when history is told as stories (by wandering minstrels)
"If it were evidenced that Christ was in Britian in 37 A.D., that wouldn't necessarily go to being after His crucifixion, again, IF that's what you're suggesting?"
I'm saying that's what Gildas wrote in the 5th century. It was a widespread belief then. Here is an article about a reference to The Wife Of Jesus from an ancient copric (Egyptian) Text. Note the same kind of academic scepticism, they're not saying it's wrong just that alone it is not reliable.One professor comments "it is not proof that Jesus had a wife but it is proof that some early Christians believed he did.
A Scottish historian Laurence Gardner has written two books on the subject The Bloodline of The Holy Grail (which I haven't read) and The Magdalene Legacy (which I can recommend) My favourite of his is The Shadow of Solomon (lost secrets of the Freemasons) which is a different area of interest.
It would take too long here in a comment to explain how Jesus might have survived the crucifixion, there is far more evidence that he did than that he didn't but again it comes down interpretations of events reported in a very confusing way. I might be persuaded to write something on it when I have finished editing my contribution to a fiction anthology.
The scepticism of the man who wrote on Gildas is proper for an academic. We don't know and can't know what Gildas actually meant, did he mean Jesus was here in person or did he mean the spirit of Christianity.
They early age at which Jesus challenged the scholars is no surprise, people got started a lot sooner then. After the Bar Mitzvah ceremony a male child was considered a man while girls were married as soon as possible after their periods began. The poet John Milton who wrote Paradise Lost was a scholar at Oxford University and working on translating Greek and Latin texts for the King James Bible when he was fourteen.
What we do know is that Joseph was NOT a carpenter, the profession accredited to him in the Greek texts is "ho tekton" which translates as nearly as possible Master Of The Craft. We don't know what a Master of the Craft was but the Dead Sea Scrolls tell us it carried high status in the Essene sect. Gardner deals with that at length but many other historians have offered a similar interpretation.
Let's leave the Druids for another time. :-)
Again, I'm open to considering Jesus might've had a wife if it's not outside of scripture. Having learned the Bible on a practiced level for many years, I'd never heard of the suggestion until current day. In that vein I am skeptical, not only about whether it be, but if it serves any purpose of faith if it does? Diving into that tangent (in my mind) is more about what it accomplishes (or doesn't) in widening faith. Indeed it would be helpful to have a foundation of knowledge for discussions like this.
I am curious why you or others came to an idea that Christ could've survived crucifixion. If that can be related to scriptural context it seems worth understanding if only to address it with skeptics. I appreciate this isn't the forum for that. I am interested in reading more in order to determine whether a purpose is served by testing it. Please let me know if you do the article?
Yes, your skepticism regarding Gildes' claim is on mark IMO (the physical -vs- the spiritual). That's interesting information about life in those days and it is much as I might've expected. I don't know how the "carpenter" trade came to be, I need to refresh my memory as well and thank you for that correction if I've misstated it. Add Essene sect and Gardner to my list :).
As mentioned elsewhere and being on the other side of the fence than you in approach, so to speak, my position on theories related to the Bible is first Bible-based. If a concept be so unrelated that it serves no purpose in broadening my faith or contextural understandings, I find little use for it. Obviously my historical bank of those times leaves much to be desired so I truly appreciate what you've brought to the discussion, thank you again.
I'm expecting to come across the Druids when I research Constantine?
The spear thrust confuses the issue but it's fairly certain that is a later embellishment of the story. There are numerous contadictions, one of the main ones being that Pilate, having washed his hands of the problem, saying "he's a Jewish blasphemer, it's a Jewish problem," then allows the Jews to administer a Roman punishment (the Romans despised the Jews) and even assigns Roman guards to supervise.
Gardner is very good on this particular topic. He will also answer all your questions on France (not the same answers I would give but close enough for jazz) and the Merovingian bloodline.
One thing occured to me after replying above and you seemed an objective source to ask. As a child I'd asked why the Jews didn't accept Christ as their Savior and, myself being young, the answer was simply that they expected a savior of more pompous and prominent stature, not a common man of meager beginnings. Do you know the "official" reason as might be attributed by history?
I'll look for what you're adding tomorrow and as always thanks for your contributions. I also look forward to dispelling them :). That's going to take some catching up first, lol.
The druids - Long white robes (early transvestites that didnt havbe their shaving together?). built Stonehenge - one of the biggest henges in the world! No one has built a henge like that since - no one knows what the F a henge is! Before that there was strawhenge and stickhenge - but a big bad wolf came along, and 3 little pigs were relocated to the projects!
Can never resist quoting Izzard - know darn well Ian was thinking it LOL.
Now featured at Gather Spirituality Essentials.
...Jesus said to them, "When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then you will enter [the kingdom]." (from saying #22, Gospel of Thomas)
Commentary by Herbert Christian Merrillat:
"An element that sets the Gospel of Thomas most sharply apart from the Jesus-sayings in the canon is the repeated message that one's goal should be a reuniting of opposites, an end to the differences of things that is a mark of this world, a grasping of oneness---in short, the experience of unity..."
May that unity come to all of God's children through a perfect reconciliation with all Divine things!
Thank you for this timely post, dear Fren.
"... an end to the differences of things that is a mark of this world, a grasping of oneness---in short, the experience of unity..."
Amen. We have a long way to go but if we each encourage it, it can and will be.
Again, thank you for contributing what few of us can. It was my pleasure, Ben.
The apostle Thomas was also known as Didymas (the twin.) It's not known who his twin was. By trade he was a fisherman and a native of Galilee in Israel. After the resurrection of the Lord Christ Jesus, Thomas went to Babylon; it is believed that he established the first Christian church there.
Thomas is known to have gone to Persia and from there he went to India and preached the Gospel making many converts. It is believed Thomas arrived in India no later than 49 AD. It is also believed that the apostle Thomas evangelized as far as China, and while in India, he suffered martyrdom (killed with a lance and buried in Mylapore, India, which is now a suburb of Madras.) It is believed he died on the 21st of December. Apostle Thomas is said to have been a fearless evangelist and a great builder of churches.
--------
Jesus appears to some of the disciples but Thomas was not with them the first time. John 20:25 says, "So the other disciples told him, 'We have seen the Lord!' But he [Thomas] said to them, 'Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it.'"
Eight days later Jesus appears before His disciples again: "A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, 'Peace be with you!' Then he said to Thomas, 'Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.' Thomas said to him, 'My Lord and my God!' Then Jesus told him, 'Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed' (John 20:26-29).
Merrillat claims that Thomas can best be understood, or looked at, in the context of Gnosticism, a very old form of Christianity, which still exists.
If you, and/or any of your readers are interested, here is a comprehensive treatise on the subject. I can highly recommend it:
http://gnosis.org/thomasbook/toc.html
May joy be yours this day and always!