Add a Comment
- What really has been missing over the last 2000 years is the ability of common "people" to learn morals from the teachings of the Christ figure. As in everything, people crave power, and thus was born the church. Killing millions in the name of Christ. Having a massive business running in the name of Christ. They say they model themselves after Him, yet everyone who is not a "member" of this faction is frowned upon. Translation after translation of the scriptures, going to "church" or whatever the proper term should be as to not offend them, people have lost the ability to see the true essence of what really happened. Im not saying I know exactly what it was, because I didn't live then. Calling in "experts" to debate the writings however just goes to prove my point. Its the game of "telephone" that we played as kids. Somebody said that somebody said that somebody said... and if you dont believe or question what the last person in line says, you are an outcast, an antichrist.
Everything is subject to interpretation. Seems like we as a society are so willing to have our own opinions and broadcast them about politics, racism, etc, but when religion comes up we all revert to what a church, or "experts" say we should or shouldn't believe. Faith has been put into the church, not the Lord. And no one seems to get that.... - Reply to this comment
- In the New Testament, Jesus' analogized himself as the bridegroom and the church as his bride. Probably this writing is not literally about marriage.
- Reply to this comment
- Who cares?
- Reply to this comment
- The fact that this scrap came from a document that originated in the 4th century, some 300 years after the time of Christ, puts it well outside of the so-called "Eyewitness Period", a period that includes the 27 documents of the New Testament.
It is also outside of the time of the earliest Church Fathers, all of whom studied with and learned from the Apostles themselves.
It is most likely a Gnostic text, which also puts it outside of Christian doctrine and most likely at odds with the doctrine of Christ.
The use of the word "disciple" in describing a woman is no great revelation either since Jesus had both male and female disciples. The word disciple after all simply means student or pupil and this word was used to describe his followers who were men and women.
Apostles, however were only men and they taught that Christ instituted priestly ordination for men alone.
In fact, Jesus was an unmarried celibate throughout his life. This may shock people or make them feel uncomfortable but God's ways are not man's ways. In addition to Jesus, John the Baptist was also a lifelong unmarried celibate as was the Apostle John. Paul of Tarsus and others also refrained from marriage throughout their lives, leading to the Church discipline of priestly celibacy.
This scrap is mildly interesting from a historical point of view but in no way will it change or shape Church doctrine, now or ever. - Reply to this comment
