What is the deal with Mary, the mother of Jesus, with Catholics.

[Jon Miller]

I think its a safe bet that lots of bits were hyperbole, turns of phrase and so on. Then over the centuries people couldn't help taking it all literally..

The church leaders who lived 50-150 AD that we have letters from/etc support Pauline Christianity.

It is possible that some leaders held different opinions (which we don't have record of), but they couldn't have been the vast majority because the ones we do have record of agree with Paul (during that time period).

The well known non-Pauline examples came much latter. Some likely could trace their roots to early church leaders (That we don't have record of), but it isn't like all the people (we have record of) within Paul's lifetime misunderstood him and presented him falsely.

JM

[kentonio]

The well known non-Pauline examples came much latter. Some likely could trace their roots to early church leaders (That we don't have record of), but it isn't like all the people (we have record of) within Paul's lifetime misunderstood him and presented him falsely.

JM

A lot of the stuff that's come from church theologians over the centuries though probably wouldn't make any sense to someone from the time. It feels like a lot of the time people took the exact wording of quotes and went 'AH! He used the word x so that must mean that y is true!'. I just don't think people tend to be that careful about the exact words they use, as you don't usually expect people to be arguing over them 2000 later.

[Proteus_MST]

The church leaders who lived 50-150 AD that we have letters from/etc support Pauline Christianity.

It is possible that some leaders held different opinions (which we don't have record of), but they couldn't have been the vast majority because the ones we do have record of agree with Paul (during that time period).

The well known non-Pauline examples came much latter. Some likely could trace their roots to early church leaders (That we don't have record of), but it isn't like all the people (we have record of) within Paul's lifetime misunderstood him and presented him falsely.

JM

But couldn´t it as well be that the letters of the church leaders who were in disagreement just fell victims to burning actions by the church?

Remember the fact that during the time when the chruch held positions of power in the roman empire (i.e. from Constantine on) not only the members of churches, who held differing views (from those that were declared catholic in the synodes) were persecuted and killed (or forced to convert), but also all of their scriptures burned.

Just think of the library of Nag Hammadi ... which contains scriptures that are the only surviving ones of their kind ...
and only survived, because they were well hidden for morfe than 1.5 millenia.

Which IMHO very well shows how thorougly the efforts of the church were, to destroy all non catholic scriptures (and I guess those scriptures from Nag Hammadi were rather widespread before the declaration of the gnostic churches as haeresias ... and existed in much more copies throughout the roman emprie than any letters by c hurch leaders)

[Berzerker]

Your cat probably gave you brain cysts.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...-crazy/308873/

holy ****

[Dinner]

Yep, parasites that control your brain. Ponder that one the next time someone posts a thread asking if cats or dogs make better pets.

[Kidlicious]

But couldn´t it as well be that the letters of the church leaders who were in disagreement just fell victims to burning actions by the church?

Remember the fact that during the time when the chruch held positions of power in the roman empire (i.e. from Constantine on) not only the members of churches, who held differing views (from those that were declared catholic in the synodes) were persecuted and killed (or forced to convert), but also all of their scriptures burned.

Just think of the library of Nag Hammadi ... which contains scriptures that are the only surviving ones of their kind ...
and only survived, because they were well hidden for morfe than 1.5 millenia.

Which IMHO very well shows how thorougly the efforts of the catholic church were, to destroy all non catholic scriptures (and I guess those scriptures from Nag Hammadi were rather widespread before the declaration of the gnostic churches as haeresias ... and existed in much more copies throughout the roman emprie than any letters by c hurch leaders)

The Gospel according to Thomas was probably buried.

Paul mentions Christians who has significantly different options than he did in his letters. There's no mention, that I know of, of Christians who disagreed with him on minor issues, but they most definitely have always existed.

[Berzerker]

how can Adam sin before knowing good and evil?

[Jon Miller]

A lot of the stuff that's come from church theologians over the centuries though probably wouldn't make any sense to someone from the time. It feels like a lot of the time people took the exact wording of quotes and went 'AH! He used the word x so that must mean that y is true!'. I just don't think people tend to be that careful about the exact words they use, as you don't usually expect people to be arguing over them 2000 later.

Actually, this sort of thing is mostly what the 'Bible alone' protestant preachers of the last 200 years have done. It is not what the traditional theologians did.

On the other hand, modern theologians seem to delight in coming up with new interpretations no matter how unlikely they are compared to the traditional ones.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Those (today) who disagree with Pauline Christianity disagree with major issues, not minor issues.

It is true that there were early people who disagreed with Paul. I said that. I just said that they were not the vast majority as evidenced by leaders (who were documented as leaders by many independent sources) who agreed with Paul in the 50-150 AD time.

There is not some issue with the fundamentals of Christianity (especially the Pauline bits, which are the bits that people who disagree with Christianity usually disagree with) being made up centuries after Christ. A significant fraction, if not the majority, of Christians held them in the first 100 years after Christ's death and resurrection.
JM

[Jon Miller]

how can Adam sin before knowing good and evil?

Read some theology.

Don't read the english translation and then reinterpret the text based on your own views without considering the historical, textual and theological context.

JM

[Kidlicious]

how can Adam sin before knowing good and evil?

You can know things in different ways. God said not to eat the fruit and he knew on the most basic level. Then after he sinned he was punished so knew on a higher level. There's a higher level than that which is not sinning.

[Kidlicious]

Those (today) who disagree with Pauline Christianity disagree with major issues, not minor issues.

It is true that there were early people who disagreed with Paul. I said that. I just said that they were not the vast majority as evidenced by leaders (who were documented as leaders by many independent sources) who agreed with Paul in the 50-150 AD time.

There is not some issue with the fundamentals of Christianity (especially the Pauline bits, which are the bits that people who disagree with Christianity usually disagree with) being made up centuries after Christ. A significant fraction, if not the majority, of Christians held them in the first 100 years after Christ's death and resurrection.
JM

I don't consider myself either Pauline or non-Pauline. I agree with his letters too much too much to consider myself non-Pauline. It may seem that I am because I only discuss differences. But neighborhood neither do I consider myself Pauline because I have a different focus on things.

[Jon Miller]

I think that you are mostly just lacking in knowledge because you haven't done much study. But you think that your ideas have just as much validity as experts on the topics.

Which is OK, I guess.

JM

[Berzerker]

You can know things in different ways. God said not to eat the fruit and he knew on the most basic level. Then after he sinned he was punished so knew on a higher level. There's a higher level than that which is not sinning.

by that logic Adam was a sinner before he acquired the knowledge of good and evil, and he acquired that knowledge before he was punished

[Kidlicious]

by that logic Adam was a sinner before he acquired the knowledge of good and evil, and he acquired that knowledge before he was punished

Yes