5 Unanswered Questions About Jesus

phattonez · May 6, 2014

PoS said:
Which is why a lot of biblical scholars are now thinking of the possibility that jesus may have been gay (assuming he existed, of course).

Total BS. Homosexual activists love to make historical figures homosexual based on flimsy to no evidence.

Shadow Serious · May 6, 2014

Paleocon said:
The granting of ecclesiastical offices to relatives is "respect of persons". Simony requires a sale.

I double checked and yes placing relatives in offices is not simony.

It was not approved by the Church for the sellers to profit.

It would make sense to allow the sellers to make a commission (not considered a profit since the bulk of the money would go to the Church) so they can be further encouraged to get as many Indulgences as possible.

Your understanding is poor. When a person is forgiven of a sin, there still remains a temporal debt of punishment due to the sin, on account of the soul's continued attachment to the sin. This temporal punishment occurs in purgatory, however by the authority of the Church, the merits of Christ can be applied to remove some or all of this punishment.

I might not understand Catholic Dogma but this seems to be spiting hairs. Jesus forgave sins he then said "go and sin no more" not "go and face the remaining temporal debt that remains".

This is called indulgences, and they can be acquired for oneself or for souls in purgatory. At the time, a donation of money to the Church was a way to acquire an indulgence (and not a very effective one, I believe most donation-based indulgences were worth a few hundred days*, whereas the much simpler indulgences for making the sign of the cross was worth seven years*).

If the benefit of indulgences were so short why have them in the first place? It was a method to make money for Chruch pojects and Pope Leo X wanted to beautify the Papal See with sculptures and works of art and not for projects as tending to the poor. He milked Europe of gold and was sent to Rome for worldly desires.

Since then, donation-based indulgences have been abolished due to their propensity for abuse.

Pope Leo X broke it do to his abuse of it. As far as I can tell indulgences are ascriptural and should not have been started in the first place. They are a rich man's way to get to heaven quicker.

If Luther had refrained from opposing the doctrine of the Church, and had restricted himself to criticizing abuses, it could have happened.

You are probably just focusing on the simony and suggest he go after that and not the Indulgences that Luther was against.

*The length of time refers to the length of penitential practices (fasting, for example) one would have to do in the ancient Church to obtain the same merit, not to the actual length of purgatory removed, which is unknown.

Martin Luther also engaged whipping himself in addition to fasting too much until he found that Christ is sufficient for the forgiveness of sins.

Paleocon · May 6, 2014

Shadow Serious said:
I double checked and yes placing relatives in offices is not simony.

It would make sense to allow the sellers to make a commission (not considered a profit since the bulk of the money would go to the Church) so they can be further encouraged to get as many Indulgences as possible.

I might not understand Catholic Dogma but this seems to be spiting hairs. Jesus forgave sins he then said "go and sin no more" not "go and face the remaining temporal debt that remains".

If the benefit of indulgences were so short why have them in the first place? It was a method to make money for Chruch pojects and Pope Leo X wanted to beautify the Papal See with sculptures and works of art and not for projects as tending to the poor. He milked Europe of gold and was sent to Rome for worldly desires.

Pope Leo X broke it do to his abuse of it. As far as I can tell indulgences are ascriptural and should not have been started in the first place. They are a rich man's way to get to heaven quicker.

You are probably just focusing on the simony and suggest he go after that and not the Indulgences that Luther was against.

Martin Luther also engaged whipping himself in addition to fasting too much until he found that Christ is sufficient for the forgiveness of sins.

The people granting the indulgence to the specific person were not allowed to make any money from it.

His statement does not contradict the doctrine regarding temporal punishment.

I did not say that they were of little benefit, I said that donation-based indulgences were of far less benefit than simpler indulgences such as the Sign of the Cross. Some of the money from donation-based indulgences went to the poor.

First, Pope Leo didn't start the practice of indulgences, nor were the first indulgences donation-based. In the ancient Church, penitential practices existed which could remit the temporal punishment due to a sin. The practice of indulgences started as a means of providing for the same effect with less severe penances (singing psalms instead of fasting, for instance). Donation-based indulgences were first introduced later, and have since been abolished (although indulgences still exist).

Exactly. He shouldn't have thought himself wiser than the Church, but should have reformed by advocating the correct application of the Church's doctrine.

He does seem to have suffered from scrupulosity. It seems that he created an alternate belief system to calm his anxiety, and then spread this belief system around Europe in order to convince himself that it actually was true.

Shadow Serious · May 6, 2014

Paleocon said:
The people granting the indulgence to the specific person were not allowed to make any money from it.

Back then many of the offices of the Church were given to younger sons of wealthy families who gave a substantial payment for this. The expectation of these families would be that the Church would take care of their sons and allow them a degree of leniency form the oath of poverty that was done when entering the priesthood. Those sons who were assigned to sell indulgences allowed to keep a specific portion of them to maintain a certain level of livelihood. Simony or not it was the practice at the time.

His statement does not contradict the doctrine regarding temporal punishment.

It certainly does not support it.

I did not say that they were of little benefit, I said that donation-based indulgences were of far less benefit than simpler indulgences such as the Sign of the Cross.

You said that the paid indulgences could get 100 days off and the Station of the Cross could get a century off that is a ratio of 1:400 approximately and thus little benefit.

Some of the money from donation-based indulgences went to the poor.

I read a little more on it and it also funded some wars but I did not see that Leo X used it for the poor.

First, Pope Leo didn't start the practice of indulgences,

Never said he did I remember that the Canterbury Tales had a seller of Indulgences

nor were the first indulgences donation-based. In the ancient Church, penitential practices existed which could remit the temporal punishment due to a sin. The practice of indulgences started as a means of providing for the same effect with less severe penances (singing psalms instead of fasting, for instance).

So at one time there were no donation based indulgences and their were indulgences based on actions. Luther was opposed to indulgences that occurred after absolution of sins he felt that if indulgences were called for they should be done before absolution.

Donation-based indulgences were first introduced later, and have since been abolished (although indulgences still exist).

If they had kept it up the Church would have been smaller than otherwise.

Exactly. He shouldn't have thought himself wiser than the Church, but should have reformed by advocating the correct application of the Church's doctrine.

Pope Leo X did not want to address any abuses that was going on in the Church he did everything that he could do to silence Luther and finally excommunicated Luther. Pope Leo underestimated that the temporal powers were fed up with what the Church was doing in interfering in their afairs in addition to siphoning off a lot of the money to the Vatican.

He does seem to have suffered from scrupulosity. It seems that he created an alternate belief system to calm his anxiety, and then spread this belief system around Europe in order to convince himself that it actually was true.[/QUOTE]

Luther was taught that God and Jesus was unapproachable and hatted the penitent and the only thing that could sway them would be such acts as flagellation and fasting could pay for the sins. Latter he found that belief in death and Crucifixion of Jesus had paid for the commission of his sins. This is the Central theme of Christianity. The Catholic Church at Leo's time at least diminished the role of Jesus in the forgiveness of sins.

PoS · May 7, 2014

RGacky3 said:
Which biblican scholars .... name one of them, I'm calling bull****.

Morton Smith is one of them.

Paleocon · May 7, 2014

Shadow Serious said:
Back then many of the offices of the Church were given to younger sons of wealthy families who gave a substantial payment for this. The expectation of these families would be that the Church would take care of their sons and allow them a degree of leniency form the oath of poverty that was done when entering the priesthood. Those sons who were assigned to sell indulgences allowed to keep a specific portion of them to maintain a certain level of livelihood. Simony or not it was the practice at the time.

It certainly does not support it.

You said that the paid indulgences could get 100 days off and the Station of the Cross could get a century off that is a ratio of 1:400 approximately and thus little benefit.

I read a little more on it and it also funded some wars but I did not see that Leo X used it for the poor.

Never said he did I remember that the Canterbury Tales had a seller of Indulgences

So at one time there were no donation based indulgences and their were indulgences based on actions. Luther was opposed to indulgences that occurred after absolution of sins he felt that if indulgences were called for they should be done before absolution.

If they had kept it up the Church would have been smaller than otherwise.

Pope Leo X did not want to address any abuses that was going on in the Church he did everything that he could do to silence Luther and finally excommunicated Luther. Pope Leo underestimated that the temporal powers were fed up with what the Church was doing in interfering in their afairs in addition to siphoning off a lot of the money to the Vatican.

He does seem to have suffered from scrupulosity. It seems that he created an alternate belief system to calm his anxiety, and then spread this belief system around Europe in order to convince himself that it actually was true.

Luther was taught that God and Jesus was unapproachable and hatted the penitent and the only thing that could sway them would be such acts as flagellation and fasting could pay for the sins. Latter he found that belief in death and Crucifixion of Jesus had paid for the commission of his sins. This is the Central theme of Christianity. The Catholic Church at Leo's time at least diminished the role of Jesus in the forgiveness of sins.[/QUOTE]

The Church in her laws did not permit such profit-making.

In itself it is neutral.

I said a few hundred days. And I said that the sign of the cross could get seven years. They had the variety of indulgences because grants of indulgence generally do not expire, thus the accumulation.

The grants of indulgence he personally gave were not, however there were donation-based indulgences which preceded him, and which were sometimes used for charity.

Ok.

Correct. He opposed indulgences generally (an indulgence could not be granted before absolution), and thus was condemned.

Ok.

He probably didn't. But the immorality of a specific Pope does not give license to a person to attack the doctrine of the Church, under the pretext of reform.

Whatever Luther may have convinced himself due to his scrupulosity, such opinions were not based on the teachings of the Church.

B.L.Zeebub · May 7, 2014

phattonez said:
Total BS. Homosexual activists love to make historical figures homosexual based on flimsy to no evidence.

yes but your country has a tradition of executing people for similar reasons and my Gaydar is never wrong.

Shadow Serious · May 7, 2014

Paleocon said:
The Church in her laws did not permit such profit-making.

In itself it is neutral.

I said a few hundred days. And I said that the sign of the cross could get seven years. They had the variety of indulgences because grants of indulgence generally do not expire, thus the accumulation.

The grants of indulgence he personally gave were not, however there were donation-based indulgences which preceded him, and which were sometimes used for charity.

Ok.

Correct. He opposed indulgences generally (an indulgence could not be granted before absolution), and thus was condemned.

Ok.

He probably didn't. But the immorality of a specific Pope does not give license to a person to attack the doctrine of the Church, under the pretext of reform.

Whatever Luther may have convinced himself due to his scrupulosity, such opinions were not based on the teachings of the Church.

Anyway I think I am done. You are apparently an old school Catholic and you view your religion thru rose colored glasses.

Paleocon · May 7, 2014

Shadow Serious said:
Anyway I think I am done. You are apparently an old school Catholic and you view your religion thru rose colored glasses.

Your resignation from the discussion is accepted.

phattonez · May 7, 2014

Shadow Serious said:
Anyway I think I am done. You are apparently an old school Catholic and you view your religion thru rose colored glasses.

I think you meant to say Catholic.

RGacky3 · May 8, 2014

PoS said:
Morton Smith is one of them.

Do you know what his argument was and what it was based on? It was based on the Secret gospel of Mark, which has been later seen as a forgery.

PoS · May 8, 2014

RGacky3 said:
Do you know what his argument was and what it was based on? It was based on the Secret gospel of Mark, which has been later seen as a forgery.

Where's the proof that it was a forgery?

RGacky3 · May 8, 2014

PoS said:
Where's the proof that it was a forgery?

Well, we don't actually have the manuscript at all, just a photograph, and hand writing experts have said it's probably a 20th Century forgary ... it's strange that this manuscript shows up, only one guy sees it, and then Writes about it, then it dissapears.

PoS · May 8, 2014

RGacky3 said:
Well, we don't actually have the manuscript at all, just a photograph, and hand writing experts have said it's probably a 20th Century forgary ... it's strange that this manuscript shows up, only one guy sees it, and then Writes about it, then it dissapears.

Well since the contents are obviously explosive, its not a surprise the source disappeared.

And according to Wikipedia, experts are split as to whether it was authentic or not and handwriting experts concluded it wasnt Morton Smith's handwriting.

RGacky3 · May 8, 2014

PoS said:
Well since the contents are obviously explosive, its not a surprise the source disappeared.

And according to Wikipedia, experts are split as to whether it was authentic or not and handwriting experts concluded it wasnt Morton Smith's handwriting.

They also said it was a 20th Century forgery.

The contents are not that explosive, we have tons of ancient texts all over the place that Challenge orthodoxy.

PoS · May 8, 2014

RGacky3 said:
we have tons of ancient texts all over the place that Challenge orthodoxy.

Yes, but nothing as explosive as that one.

And if you read the secret gospel it actually coincides with what Mark wrote later because just as jesus is about to be arrested there was a half naked youth following him around who wasnt previously mentioned before but that same youth was written about in the secret gospel- so its consistent.

RGacky3 · May 8, 2014

PoS said:
Yes, but nothing as explosive as that one.

And if you read the secret gospel it actually coincides with what Mark wrote later because just as jesus is about to be arrested there was a half naked youth following him around who wasnt previously mentioned before but that same youth was written about in the secret gospel- so its consistent.

What Mark wrote LATER???? NO one, not even People who consider it Authentic, think it was written earlier than Mark, no **** it's consistant, a forgery WOULD be consistant.

We have texts where Jesus isn't even flesh, where he is gnostic, and so on, where he doesn't die, these are just as explosive as ones suggesting he might be gay.

But a text that is just a photograph and notes, from a guy, who couldn't actually show the origional, and is most likely a forgery, is no evidence for saying "many scholars think he might be gay."

phattonez · May 8, 2014

PoS said:
Well since the contents are obviously explosive, its not a surprise the source disappeared.

This is a terrible argument if you're trying to defend the validity of a source.

Roger Viklund · May 9, 2014

RGacky3 said:
What Mark wrote LATER???? NO one, not even People who consider it Authentic, think it was written earlier than Mark, no **** it's consistant, a forgery WOULD be consistant.

Well, Helmut Koester, John Dominic Crossan, Ron Cameron, Hans-Martin Schenke, and Marvin Meyer all argue that Secret Mark was written before the canonical Gospel of Mark. Also I think that Secret Mark was written before Mark, if so only a day before.

RGacky3 · May 12, 2014

Roger Viklund said:
Well, Helmut Koester, John Dominic Crossan, Ron Cameron, Hans-Martin Schenke, and Marvin Meyer all argue that Secret Mark was written before the canonical Gospel of Mark. Also I think that Secret Mark was written before Mark, if so only a day before.

We don't even know whether the Secret gospel of mark is not a hoax or not, we only have ONE photograph, of something which was mysteriously not found again, by a guy who took a Picture (but did'nt actually take the manuscript to be studied)??? And who also happened to be a homosexual.

So we don't even know if the "Secret gospel of mark" is an actual gospel or not, I would submit that it has all the signs of a hoax.

Roger Viklund · May 12, 2014

RGacky3 said:
We don't even know whether the Secret gospel of mark is not a hoax or not, we only have ONE photograph, of something which was mysteriously not found again, by a guy who took a Picture (but did'nt actually take the manuscript to be studied)??? And who also happened to be a homosexual.

So we don't even know if the "Secret gospel of mark" is an actual gospel or not, I would submit that it has all the signs of a hoax.

we only have ONE photograph …

Actually, we have TWO SETS of photographs and possibly a THIRD that has never been published. Morton Smith took IIRC three photos of each page in b&w in 1958. He basically put the book on the floor of his room and took some photos. Only one of those sets has been published. In the late 70s the librarian at Mar Saba took another set of photos, this time in colour and they were published in the beginning of the last decade. And in the early 80s Quentin Quesnell took a third set of photographs which yet are waiting to be published.

… of something which was mysteriously not found again …

Well in 1976 three scholars from the Hebrew university of Jerusalem went to Mar Saba and found the book with the inscription of the letter. The book was in the shelf were Smith obviously left it 18 years earlier. Later Quentin Quesnell had the opportunity to study the leaves (which by then had been removed from the book by the librarian) att the library at Jerusalem to which the book had been transferred. Quesnell could study it a couple of hours a day for a week. So the letter was obviously found again, but no one claims to have seen it after 1990. It (the leaves, not the book which is available) can no longer be located at the library.

… by a guy who took a Picture (but did'nt actually take the manuscript to be studied)???

Are you suggesting that he should have stolen the book from the monastery?

And who also happened to be a homosexual.

There is no evidence that Morton Smith was homosexual. The only fact we have is that he dated women. But even if he was homosexual, so what?

So we don't even know if the "Secret gospel of mark" is an actual gospel or not

Well, we seldom know for sure if a manuscript is genuine or not unless it has been found in a controlled archeological digging site.

I would submit that it has all the signs of a hoax.

I’m sure you would, but what are the signs that convince you that it is a hoax?

5 Unanswered Questions About Jesus

phattonez

Catholic

Shadow Serious

Paleocon

Shadow Serious

PoS

Minister of Love

Paleocon

B.L.Zeebub

Shadow Serious

Paleocon

phattonez

Catholic

RGacky3

PoS

Minister of Love

RGacky3

PoS

Minister of Love

RGacky3

PoS

Minister of Love

RGacky3

phattonez

Catholic

Roger Viklund

New member

RGacky3

Roger Viklund

New member