Posted on 09/20/2012 6:02:24 PM PDT by count-your-change
I’m looking forward to a closer dispassionate examination of the papyrus.
The reason Jesus commissioned his beloved disciple John to take care of his mother, when normally this duty would pass to the next oldest son, I think is this: Jesus knew that each of his two brothers would soon be martyred themselves, and that John would live to the ripe old age of 90.
That might be hard to explain.
I'd posted earlier that the Lord told the prophet Jeremiah to not marry (Jer. 16:1-2) -- looking at the prophet's tumultuous life and the sufferings he endured as he warned Israel of the consequences of her faithlessness (Jerusalem was destroyed and the Jews were carried captive into Babylon) -- it's easy to see how having a family would have burdened him in his duties as a prophet.
Throughout the book of Jeremiah God refers to Israel as his (faithless) bride that He wishes to reconcile to Himself.
“Return, faithless people,” declares the Lord, “for I am your husband. I will choose you—one from a town and two from a clan—and bring you to Zion. " Jer. 3:14
Israel/The Church is Christ's bride.
Christ, in His human role as teacher, could not have been burdened with a family of his own. In His Divine role as husband of Israel/The Church, he could not have been married in the human sense.
And who makes up the church? You and I so yes humans. The church is not a building but a body of believers.
“Yeah—wasn’t the celibacy of priests a late (12th century or so) development in the Church?”
Yep. It was an administrative decision by the Pope. Parishoners were complaining that Priests weren’t doing their jobs because they were too busy working at other jobs to support wives and mistresses. So the Pope said no more marrying.
This is a possibilty but James the Just (Jesus’ bro) who was the first Bishop of Jerusalem lived another 28 years until he was murdered in 62AD. Maybe Jesus wanted to free him up from that responsibility to build the church.
This is like someone discovering a text from 2009 saying George Washington was a secret British spy.....
wait, you mean Abe WASN’T a vampire hunter?
on the contrary you have the example of Essenes during the same time who believed that sexual relations were evil.
part of their beliefs was a Savior who would be celibateThere have always been legends of Christ having children and them being carried off to southern France for their safety. -- err.. no, there have never "always" been these legends. There was none of this during the Roman era or the middle ages
More importantly, any Semites escaping from Roman authorities wouldn't head towards the Roman Empire but head the other way, to Parthia or India where there were Jewish communities from centuries BC.
The Frankish Kingdom was declared as kings in the line of David and Solomon -- NOT in Jewish blood.
sorry, but these are utterly wrong statements in your post.
Because Christ didn't have any children, nor any siblings from Mary.
In a Semitic society then as now, the care of the mother is with her sons. One does not entrust one's mother to the care of someone who is not her son or daughter. It is not done.
the only certainty is that Peter was married. Clement of Alexandria notes that Peter and Philip fathered children. It is highly probable that the others were married except possibly young John
depends on what you mean by "popular" -- monks were revered from the early centuries as holy men, while married priests, even devout still were perceived as less devout. It's the same today with pastors -- gossip about the pastor's wife etc. even when completely unfounded.
As time went by, people clamoured for more presbyters (priests) to be like monks..
well, let's first repeat, this is a discipline, not a dogma of faith, so can be changed with no impact to doctrine
But to your point, no, this is not a late development -- at the Council of Elvira in 305 you had Canon 33 It is decided that marriage be altogether prohibited to bishops, priests, and deacons, or to all clerics placed in the ministry, and that they keep away from their wives and not beget children; whoever does this, shall be deprived of the honor of the clerical office. while the council of Carthage was circumspect It is fitting that the holy bishops and priests of God as well as the Levites, i.e. those who are in the service of the divine sacraments, observe perfect continence, so that they may obtain in all simplicity what they are asking from God; what the Apostles taught and what antiquity itself observed, let us also endeavour to keep… It pleases us all that bishop, priest and deacon, guardians of purity, abstain from conjugal intercourse with their wives, so that those who serve at the altar may keep a perfect chastity.
you are right that it became mandatory for Latin-rite only in the 11th century, but since Pope Gregory's time it was recognized as something to be followed.
Among Maronite and eastern Catholics, the rule is that married men can become priests (but not vice-versa)
Please note the author of this study can provide absolutely no provenance for this fragment. We have no idea where it came from, when it was found or who found it. This indicate strongly that it is a fake or forgery. As do its physical characteristics. Can you say “Secret Gospel of Mark”? I thought you could.
But even if it proves to be from the fourth cen. there was a lot of garbage and fake gospels in existence then too.
Like the "ossuary of James." It was initially authenticated at the highest academic levels but was later shown to be fake.
The Eastern churches ordain married men to the diocesan priesthood (but never permit them to remarry if they are widowed), but only elevate celibate men to the episcopacy.
Sorry, but Christians believe that Jesus fulfilled the Law of Moses perfectly. If James had been Mary's son, Jesus would have been sinning seriously by taking from him his obligation to fulfill the mitzvah "Honor thy father and thy mother".
Scripture identifies James' father as "Alphaeus". He was most likely Jesus' cousin.
But the thing was probably fake, certainly the documentation for it was faked. The Getty could never admitt it got burned and I think the statue was quietly put away.
Wikipedia introduces the kouros question quite well:
“Provenance
The kouros first appeared on the art market in 1983 when the Basel dealer Gianfranco Becchina offered the work to the Getty's curator of antiquities, Jiri Frel.
Frel deposited the sculpture (then in seven pieces) at Malibu along with a number of documents purporting to attest to the statue’s authenticity. These documents traced the provenance of the piece to a collection in Geneva of Dr. Jean Lauffenberger who, it was claimed, had bought it in 1930 from a Greek dealer.
No find site or archaeological data was recorded. Amongst the papers was a suspect 1952 letter allegedly from Ernst Langlotz, then the preeminent scholar of Greek sculpture, remarking on the similarity of the kouros to the Anavyssos youth in Athens (NAMA 3851).
Later inquiries by the Getty revealed that the postcode on the Langlotz letter did not exist until 1972, and that a bank account mentioned in a 1955 letter to an A.E. Bigenwald regarding repairs on the statue was not opened until 1963.[6] The documentary history of the sculpture was evidently an elaborate hoax and therefore there are no reliable facts about its recent history before 1983.”
Even the “experts” get burned.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.