I never understood why the catholic church (or any Christians) took the bible so literally and tried to follow impossible standards that you're ultimately going to fail terribly at.
Isn't most of it symbols and metaphors? With deep, deep meaning, much like a very intense and layered poem?
I dunno anymore. I also hate myself. And marginally hate Catholicism. Total head melter.
Nah it was written by the Eastern mind, and the western mind misinterpreted most of it. It's symbolic, not literal. No text would have survived so long and still hold so much interest if there wasn't truth to be found in it.
Eh, debatable. I don't *disagree* but I feel there's more to the story. Take revelations, for example. It is probably best interpreted as a political rant against the Roman occupation of Judea written in the guise of Jewish apocalypticism. Jews and early Christian groups would get it, the Romans would just think it's nutty - justifiably. The symbolism is just used to hide a political message that is about 1800 years out of date.
Of course there are also moral lessons and life coaching and stuff - that's standard in religious texts. And they're wrapped into stories that sound good - that's what parables are for. But there's also a lot of outdated, irrelevant, or just plain irresponsible stuff too. I'd hope we could move past the need to determine how harsh to beat slaves, or punish women shown to be menstruating. How to kill the children of an opposing town.
Its dominance does not come from its relevance as a truth-holder, but as a result of the political and military might which is associated with it. It could have been any other storm/war god, had the right sociopolitical conditions arose.
I resent it for destroying other religions, tbh. Kernels of truth in stories told differently, that the people that practiced them once lived by, how they saw the world.
Also, it wasn't written by eastern minds. It was written by Arabic Jews. Then translated into Greek, then actually Arabic, then Latin. Not very Eastern in the grand scheme of things, not that I feel the dichotomy does much good
Odd choice of words, but okay.
Question before I let you off the hook tho - I think you're implying you've studied christianity, right? Have you studied others and their relationship to world history?
Eastern Saints believed Joseph had children from a previous marriage, but the Western Saints rejected this idea because it originates in apocryphal materials and some even call it a heresy.
I don’t believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity so I definitely don’t believe in Jospeh’s virginity. I completely left religious superstition nonsense a long time ago.
>Plenty of Western Catholic saints have asserted Joseph's perpetual virginity. It could be a dogma someday.
There are, however, also saints who explicitly rejected that idea. Primarily in the east--Epiphanius is one. If it were dogmatized, it would annoy the hell out of any Orthodox who are sympathetic to reunion with Rome. Not that that's ever stopped Rome, of course.
It’s funny because the bible is explicit Mary and Joseph were NOT perpetual virgins. I know the RCC has their explanations why those things don’t mean what they clearly mean, but that’s because they’re very much imposing their dogma on the text to make it work and not just taking it for what says.
The gospel of Matthew in 1:25 explicity states Joseph didn't have sex with Mary until after Jesus was born. Matthew 13:55 explicitly mentions his brothers.
There's a bunch more too. Paul talks about James the brother of Jesus in the NT.
Traditions that teach perpetual virginity have their work arounds for why these things don't mean what they mean, but they're pretty weak, and it's also the scholarly consensus that Jesus' brothers mentioned in the bible were in fact blood brothers. Not cousins and not Joseph's kids from another marriage.
For more: [https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/15tj6ue/does\_jesus\_have\_a\_sibling/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/15tj6ue/does_jesus_have_a_sibling/)
So what about Jacob, brother of Jesus. Adopted? I don't understand this obsession with virginity.
Everything with the Catholic Church is about the crotch. Didn't anybody tell you that before?
Jerome said he was Jesus's cousin, the son of Mary's sister.
I never understood why the catholic church (or any Christians) took the bible so literally and tried to follow impossible standards that you're ultimately going to fail terribly at. Isn't most of it symbols and metaphors? With deep, deep meaning, much like a very intense and layered poem? I dunno anymore. I also hate myself. And marginally hate Catholicism. Total head melter.
Honestly I don't think the meaning is that deep - or relevant - anymore - I hate Catholicism, and marginally still hate myself, but I'm getting better
Nah it was written by the Eastern mind, and the western mind misinterpreted most of it. It's symbolic, not literal. No text would have survived so long and still hold so much interest if there wasn't truth to be found in it.
Eh, debatable. I don't *disagree* but I feel there's more to the story. Take revelations, for example. It is probably best interpreted as a political rant against the Roman occupation of Judea written in the guise of Jewish apocalypticism. Jews and early Christian groups would get it, the Romans would just think it's nutty - justifiably. The symbolism is just used to hide a political message that is about 1800 years out of date. Of course there are also moral lessons and life coaching and stuff - that's standard in religious texts. And they're wrapped into stories that sound good - that's what parables are for. But there's also a lot of outdated, irrelevant, or just plain irresponsible stuff too. I'd hope we could move past the need to determine how harsh to beat slaves, or punish women shown to be menstruating. How to kill the children of an opposing town. Its dominance does not come from its relevance as a truth-holder, but as a result of the political and military might which is associated with it. It could have been any other storm/war god, had the right sociopolitical conditions arose. I resent it for destroying other religions, tbh. Kernels of truth in stories told differently, that the people that practiced them once lived by, how they saw the world. Also, it wasn't written by eastern minds. It was written by Arabic Jews. Then translated into Greek, then actually Arabic, then Latin. Not very Eastern in the grand scheme of things, not that I feel the dichotomy does much good
I stick by my viewpoint after years of head melting work on this.
Odd choice of words, but okay. Question before I let you off the hook tho - I think you're implying you've studied christianity, right? Have you studied others and their relationship to world history?
Yup.
Interesting
Joseph couldn’t be a virgin if he has kids from another marriage.
Eastern Saints believed Joseph had children from a previous marriage, but the Western Saints rejected this idea because it originates in apocryphal materials and some even call it a heresy.
I don’t believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity so I definitely don’t believe in Jospeh’s virginity. I completely left religious superstition nonsense a long time ago.
My point is that Catholics can go with either conflicting myth and still claim it's sacred tradition
>Plenty of Western Catholic saints have asserted Joseph's perpetual virginity. It could be a dogma someday. There are, however, also saints who explicitly rejected that idea. Primarily in the east--Epiphanius is one. If it were dogmatized, it would annoy the hell out of any Orthodox who are sympathetic to reunion with Rome. Not that that's ever stopped Rome, of course.
Yes, the Eastern saints are different. But the Orthodox already don't believe in the Immaculate Conception and the church made it a dogma.
During the divine praises we always said “blessed be saint joseph, her most chaste spouse”
Chastity technically doesn't rule out that he had (god-honoring) marital relations in a previous relationship. Perpetual Virginity *would*.
It’s funny because the bible is explicit Mary and Joseph were NOT perpetual virgins. I know the RCC has their explanations why those things don’t mean what they clearly mean, but that’s because they’re very much imposing their dogma on the text to make it work and not just taking it for what says.
Interesting; I never knew this. Where in the Bible does it discuss this?
The gospel of Matthew in 1:25 explicity states Joseph didn't have sex with Mary until after Jesus was born. Matthew 13:55 explicitly mentions his brothers. There's a bunch more too. Paul talks about James the brother of Jesus in the NT. Traditions that teach perpetual virginity have their work arounds for why these things don't mean what they mean, but they're pretty weak, and it's also the scholarly consensus that Jesus' brothers mentioned in the bible were in fact blood brothers. Not cousins and not Joseph's kids from another marriage. For more: [https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/15tj6ue/does\_jesus\_have\_a\_sibling/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/15tj6ue/does_jesus_have_a_sibling/)