Life of Mary?!

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

Well, the difference is that even most SW fans tend to think that that kind of fan-dumb where one can't differentiate between own fanfic and actual canon, is, shall we say, not particularly sane. Meanwhile in Xianity, if you're fan-dumb enough, you might just be church father material

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander

Not seeing a LOT of differences there...

Canon, whether it is in the Star Wars, Marvel, StarTrek or Christian Universe, it is still fan fiction. The people in control decide what is and isn't cannon.

[Norman Alexander]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Canon, whether it is in the Star Wars, Marvel, StarTrek or Christian Universe, it is still fan fiction. The people in control decide what is and isn't cannon.

Still not seeing a lot of differences with the Christian canon. I think it all started with the First Council of Nicaea, aka The First Global Christian Convention of 325!, trying to set the fanfic straight. It didn't go well from there...

[shemp]

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander

Still not seeing a lot of differences with the Christian canon. I think it all started with the First Council of Nicaea, aka The First Global Christian Convention of 325!, trying to set the fanfic straight. It didn't go well from there...

If only the First Council of Nicaea had gone the "S&M Furry Fanfic" route, Christianity would be so much more interesting.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander

Still not seeing a lot of differences with the Christian canon. I think it all started with the First Council of Nicaea, aka The First Global Christian Convention of 325!, trying to set the fanfic straight. It didn't go well from there...

The council of Nicea had little to do with establishing what is canonical. They agreed on 20 of 33 books and even those books were not accepted universally.

And for hundreds of years before that the Christian canon was debated and fought over. For example, Marcion of Sinope created the first Canon and that was a fraction of the Christian Bible we know today.

The Catholic canon wasn't formalized until the 16th century. And It should be noted even this was arbitrary and not even a majority of the cardinals voted for it.

[HansMustermann]

AFAIK Nicaea didn't even do that. The first actual councils that wrote down the list of books that are canonical were in Rome 382 AD, Hippo 393 AD, and in Carthage 397 AD. Though Athanasius lists 27 of the books considered canon in 367 AD, and Eusebius has a sort of a list in his Ecclesiastical History shortly before Nicaea. (Though for example he has Revelation as both genuine AND spurious, but not as disputed) Both the latter are just descriptive of the status quo, more than anything prescriptive.

But I suppose the comparison to fanboys still stands, since they've been *ahem* flaming each other over it ever since

[Delvo]

Nicaea was even weirder than humans deciding what would and wouldn't count as God's books. It was humans deciding what precisely were the best and worst ways to say 3=1.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

Quote:

The Virgin Mary is a shibboleth. Whatever one thinks of Jesus, it is impossible to be neutral about her place in Christian doctrine and devotion. Either Mary is essential to the faith as the Mother of God, or she is a mere woman, or (perhaps) she is a quasi-pagan goddess who endangers the dignity and prerogatives of her son as Creator and Lord. There is no middle ground, no shared pronunciation by which Mary might be both the glorious Virgin Mother and the historically humble mother of Jesus. There is no historiography by which she might be both theologically necessary as the creature in whom the Creator took on flesh and historically recoverable as the Jewish peasant from Galilee. Either she is the Woman seen and foreseen in the Scriptures to become the Mother of God or she is a later historical invention who distracts from the singularity of Christ.

Per: https://www.firstthings.com/article/...istorical-mary and a lot more too.

Heck, doesn't just the trinity distract from the singularity of Christ?

ETA: Ninja'd by Delvo

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Olmstead

Rather boring for a fertility goddess.

Originally Posted by Craig4

Yeah, she only got around once.

Sure, but I seem to recall something about her conceiving through her ear (by the word of god). So one time around but appears to be the long way 'round.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Canon, whether it is in the Star Wars, Marvel, StarTrek or Christian Universe, it is still fan fiction. The people in control decide what is and isn't cannon.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

AFAIK Nicaea didn't even do that. The first actual councils that wrote down the list of books that are canonical were in Rome 382 AD, Hippo 393 AD, and in Carthage 397 AD. Though Athanasius lists 27 of the books considered canon in 367 AD, and Eusebius has a sort of a list in his Ecclesiastical History shortly before Nicaea. (Though for example he has Revelation as both genuine AND spurious, but not as disputed) Both the latter are just descriptive of the status quo, more than anything prescriptive.

But I suppose the comparison to fanboys still stands, since they've been *ahem* flaming each other over it ever since

I was under the impression that the Council of Nicea had nothing to do with deciding what was Canon. But Wikipedia which could be wrong references 20 Canons. It says almost nothing about it. I chose to add it because I figured that about this subject it was more likely to be right than me.

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

I was under the impression that the Council of Nicea had nothing to do with deciding what was Canon.

Sorta. They used the word "canon" for more than which books go into the bible. So no, they didn't even have on the agenda which books those are. The 20 canons, as even Wiki will tell you are these:

1. prohibition of self-castration for clergy
2. establishment of a minimum term for catechumens (persons studying for baptism)
3. prohibition of the presence in the house of a cleric of a younger woman who might bring him under suspicion (the so called virgines subintroductae, who practiced Syneisaktism)
4. ordination of a bishop in the presence of at least three provincial bishops[8] and confirmation by the metropolitan bishop
5. provision for two provincial synods to be held annually
6. confirmation of ancient customs giving jurisdiction over large regions to the bishops of Alexandria, Rome, and Antioch
7. recognition of the honorary rights of the see of Jerusalem
8. provision for agreement with the Novatianists, an early sect
9. elders who had been ordained without sufficient examination were not to be recognized
10. elders who had lapsed but had not been found out were to be deposed
11. mercy was enjoined toward those who had lapsed without compulsion, even though it was recognized that they did not deserve it
12. those who had left the military but later sought out to be restored to their military position were to be excommunicated. Depending on the sincerity of their repentance, they could be readmitted to communion earlier.
13. those who were fulfilling penance could receive communion if they were dying. But if they got well again, they were to finish their penance.
14. catachumens who lapsed were to have three years as hearers before being allowed to become catechumens again
15. bishops, presbyters, and deacons were not to wander into neighboring cities to officiate
16. clergy who refused to return to their home church were to be excommunicated, and the ordinations of those who were ordained by these wandering clergy were to be considered null and void
17. prohibition of usury among the clergy
18. precedence of bishops and presbyters before deacons in receiving the Eucharist (Holy Communion)
19. declaration of the invalidity of baptism by Paulian heretics
20. prohibition of kneeling on Sundays and during the Pentecost (the fifty days commencing on Easter). Standing was the normative posture for prayer at this time, as it still is among the Eastern Christians. Kneeling was considered most appropriate to penitential prayer, as distinct from the festive nature of Eastertide and its remembrance every Sunday. The canon itself was designed only to ensure uniformity of practice at the designated times.

[Chanakya]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

Sorta. They used the word "canon" for more than which books go into the bible. So no, they didn't even have on the agenda which books those are. The 20 canons, as even Wiki will tell you are these:

1. prohibition of self-castration for clergy
2. establishment of a minimum term for catechumens (persons studying for baptism)
3. prohibition of the presence in the house of a cleric of a younger woman who might bring him under suspicion (the so called virgines subintroductae, who practiced Syneisaktism)
4. ordination of a bishop in the presence of at least three provincial bishops[8] and confirmation by the metropolitan bishop
5. provision for two provincial synods to be held annually
6. confirmation of ancient customs giving jurisdiction over large regions to the bishops of Alexandria, Rome, and Antioch
7. recognition of the honorary rights of the see of Jerusalem
8. provision for agreement with the Novatianists, an early sect
9. elders who had been ordained without sufficient examination were not to be recognized
10. elders who had lapsed but had not been found out were to be deposed
11. mercy was enjoined toward those who had lapsed without compulsion, even though it was recognized that they did not deserve it
12. those who had left the military but later sought out to be restored to their military position were to be excommunicated. Depending on the sincerity of their repentance, they could be readmitted to communion earlier.
13. those who were fulfilling penance could receive communion if they were dying. But if they got well again, they were to finish their penance.
14. catachumens who lapsed were to have three years as hearers before being allowed to become catechumens again
15. bishops, presbyters, and deacons were not to wander into neighboring cities to officiate
16. clergy who refused to return to their home church were to be excommunicated, and the ordinations of those who were ordained by these wandering clergy were to be considered null and void
17. prohibition of usury among the clergy
18. precedence of bishops and presbyters before deacons in receiving the Eucharist (Holy Communion)
19. declaration of the invalidity of baptism by Paulian heretics
20. prohibition of kneeling on Sundays and during the Pentecost (the fifty days commencing on Easter). Standing was the normative posture for prayer at this time, as it still is among the Eastern Christians. Kneeling was considered most appropriate to penitential prayer, as distinct from the festive nature of Eastertide and its remembrance every Sunday. The canon itself was designed only to ensure uniformity of practice at the designated times.

In the midst of all of this weirdness, the first bullet caught my eye, in terms of standing out for weirdness even in this group [which includes gems like "prohibition of kneeling on Sundays (!!)"]. Why are they prohibiting clergy from "self-castrating"? Was that actually a thing, those first three or four centuries?

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

Sorta. They used the word "canon" for more than which books go into the bible. So no, they didn't even have on the agenda which books those are. The 20 canons, as even Wiki will tell you are these:

1. prohibition of self-castration for clergy
2. establishment of a minimum term for catechumens (persons studying for baptism)
3. prohibition of the presence in the house of a cleric of a younger woman who might bring him under suspicion (the so called virgines subintroductae, who practiced Syneisaktism)
4. ordination of a bishop in the presence of at least three provincial bishops[8] and confirmation by the metropolitan bishop
5. provision for two provincial synods to be held annually
6. confirmation of ancient customs giving jurisdiction over large regions to the bishops of Alexandria, Rome, and Antioch
7. recognition of the honorary rights of the see of Jerusalem
8. provision for agreement with the Novatianists, an early sect
9. elders who had been ordained without sufficient examination were not to be recognized
10. elders who had lapsed but had not been found out were to be deposed
11. mercy was enjoined toward those who had lapsed without compulsion, even though it was recognized that they did not deserve it
12. those who had left the military but later sought out to be restored to their military position were to be excommunicated. Depending on the sincerity of their repentance, they could be readmitted to communion earlier.
13. those who were fulfilling penance could receive communion if they were dying. But if they got well again, they were to finish their penance.
14. catachumens who lapsed were to have three years as hearers before being allowed to become catechumens again
15. bishops, presbyters, and deacons were not to wander into neighboring cities to officiate
16. clergy who refused to return to their home church were to be excommunicated, and the ordinations of those who were ordained by these wandering clergy were to be considered null and void
17. prohibition of usury among the clergy
18. precedence of bishops and presbyters before deacons in receiving the Eucharist (Holy Communion)
19. declaration of the invalidity of baptism by Paulian heretics
20. prohibition of kneeling on Sundays and during the Pentecost (the fifty days commencing on Easter). Standing was the normative posture for prayer at this time, as it still is among the Eastern Christians. Kneeling was considered most appropriate to penitential prayer, as distinct from the festive nature of Eastertide and its remembrance every Sunday. The canon itself was designed only to ensure uniformity of practice at the designated times.

Thank you for this. I just skimmed the Wikipedia article.

What people need to understand about the Bible is there wasn't a bible for hundreds of years. Christianity spread through word of mouth and oral tradition as most people were illiterate. This is why the idea that a 21st century Christian viewing the Bible as inerrant word of God is ridiculous.

Books before movable type required scribes to make copies by hand and this was not an exact process. One only need to read the Synoptic Gospels to see how books evolved and were changed in the process. This was a multiple century game of telephone.

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by Chanakya

In the midst of all of this weirdness, the first bullet caught my eye, in terms of standing out for weirdness even in this group [which includes gems like "prohibition of kneeling on Sundays (!!)"]. Why are they prohibiting clergy from "self-castrating"? Was that actually a thing, those first three or four centuries?

Not sure exactly how spread that was, but it was known to happen. There are claims that Origen did that, for example.

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by Delvo

Nicaea was even weirder than humans deciding what would and wouldn't count as God's books. It was humans deciding what precisely were the best and worst ways to say 3=1.

Pretty much, yes.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Chanakya

In the midst of all of this weirdness, the first bullet caught my eye, in terms of standing out for weirdness even in this group [which includes gems like "prohibition of kneeling on Sundays (!!)"]. Why are they prohibiting clergy from "self-castrating"? Was that actually a thing, those first three or four centuries?

The obvious theological reason against it is that you get no credit for resisting a temptation you cannot possibly fulfill if you wanted to. The blind don't get karmic credit for not looking at pornography.

However, that's just theory. The actual medical effects of castration aren't a cessation of desire or an entire inability to fulfill it. In fact, in some cultures that followed the practice of having eunuchs they had a reputation for...how to put this delicately? being absolute horn-dogs precisely because of the difficulty in...completing the deal. Certain upperclass Byzantine ladies were rumored to engage in relations with eunuchs as they had the triple advantage of not being able to cause pregnancy, lasting longer in bed, and being "above suspicion"...although the latter ceased to be the case and actually became the opposite once these legends spread. It may or may not be true that a lot of eunuch-banging was going on at the time of this theological prohibition, but the rumor was around and the gentlemen at the conference would have been aware of the rumor.

Also self-castration was a feature of some of the more lurid contemporary pagan rivals to Christianity like the "mystery cults" of Greece and the Near East, and proper early Christians didn't want to be associated with those. Attis was a self-castrating god whose own mythology eventually got intertwined with Cybele, and the latter had a following that was in the early days a rival and threat to newly-Roman Christianity. Which ironically brings us back to the topic-- a lot of Mary's importance in Christianity is probably influence from the pagan cults: Christianity needed some female divinity to compete, that all-male stuff was counter to Roman tradition. Scratch a Christian saint and odds are there's a pagan god peeking out. Mary's a combined mother goddess and Vestal Virgin.

[HansMustermann]

Well, more like in the early church there was some dispute about what Jesus means when he says in Matthew 19:12, "For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it." Some people thought, basically, "ah-ha! So Jesus says that's one way to get into heavens!"

[HansMustermann]

And here I am quoting scripture on Sunday again. I swear I just have just gotten ordained

[AniKoferBo]

Thank you guys for ur comments
am not spammer here
am reading ur comments
but as am not fluent in english
btw my mother tongue is arabic
I understand u well

[AniKoferBo]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Well she probably continued to not actually exist.

maybe yes
maybe no

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

Not sure exactly how spread that was, but it was known to happen. There are claims that Origen did that, for example.

Matthew 19:12

Quote:

For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

In the First Apology of Justin Martyr there is an account of a self-castration performed by a young xian (after failing to gain permission for castration) to to dispel rumours about sexual licentiousness among xians.

You've mentioned Origen of Alexandria and his self-mutilation is attested by another church father, Eusebius, in his Church History (dating to ~323CE). Eusebius states that Origen, specifically motivated by the verse above, castrated himself, justifying this action as "he was eager to fulfil the Savior’s words and also to forestall all slander on the part of unbelievers".
Again this appears to be refutation of the charge of xian sexual licentiousness; Origen was frequently involved with the teaching of women. Initially Origen attempted to conceal his self-castration but Demetrius (then Bishop of Alexandria) learned of it and, while considering it rash, approved of the genuine enthusiasm of Origen's faith.
Now, whether Eusebius was correct is debatable but Origen's self-castration was accepted as fact by the church well after the Renaissance period.

You've mentioned the The Council of Nicaea's ban on the self-castrated being ordained; this was reiterated fifty years later in the Apostolic Constitutions. Self-gelding among the laity was also discouraged, to be punished with excommunication for three years. By then self-castration was considered misguided at best and potentially encouraged by the devil.
By the late Middle Ages castration was considered a mutilation of God’s creation, but also an attempt to short-cut one’s way to moral fortitude by removing the capacity to sin.

[Olmstead]

On a more serious note, Mary was likely based on characters in older stories of supernatural trysts, either between two gods, or between a god and a mortal. As such, the most worthwhile information on Mary can probably be found in comparative mythology. The story below for example:

https://www.greekmythology.com/Myths...chthonius.html

Quote:

Erichthonius was an early king of ancient Athens in Greek mythology, and it was believed that he was autochthonous (born of the soil).

According to the myth, Athena visited Hephaestus' workshop to ask for weapons. However, the smith god tried to seduce the virgin goddess, who fled in disgust. Hephaestus chased her and managed to catch her, in order to rape her. Athena resisted and during the struggle, Hephaestus' semen fell onto Athena's thigh. The goddess took some wool to wipe it away and threw it on the ground. Out of that semen, Erichthonius was born. Athena decided to raise him secretly and hid him in a box.

The goddess gave the box to the daughters of King Cecrops of Athens, and told them to keep the box shut. However, two of them, Aglaurus and Herse, curious to see what was inside, opened it and saw the infant Erichthonius wrapped around a snake. Driven in madness due to the sight, the two sisters along with the third, Pandrosus, fled and fell off the Acropolis to their deaths.

When Erichthonius reached adulthood, he drove the usurper Amphictyon out of the throne, and became the new leader of Athens. He was married to the naiad Praxithea, with whom he had a son, Pandion the First. Throughout his reign, Erichthonius was protected by Athena, for whom he created the Panathenaic Festival. It was also believed that he invented the four - horse chariot, and after his death, Zeus was so impressed that he transformed him into a constellation, the Charioteer (Auriga).

See Also: Athena, Hephaestus, Cecrops, Aglaurus, Herse, Pandrosus, Pandion I
Source: https://www.greekmythology.com/Myths...chthonius.html

[Robin]

There seems to be very little on Mary. Here is some of what I found:

She spent much of her earlier years as a scribe and translator in Herod's court, dealing mostly with mundane matters of tax and court hearings, but she did produce a translation of some of Ovid's poetry into Aramaic and her ligjthearted rendering of Ovid's "Dead Parrot" ode into colloquial Hebrew was much admired in its day. Reports that she had actually met the poet are almost certainly wrong since she never travelled to Rome.

A number of original works have been attributed to her but the only ones for which authenticity has been established are On Immensity and Some Clarifications on Immensity [citation required]

She used her writing and translating skills to assist the early resistance movement against the Romans, something which, when uncovered, cost her the position at court, forcing her to eke out a living as a Wedding Feast planner, something for which she had no real talent. Some court documents of the time refer to litigation by a newlywed alleging that a "Maria Scriba" served water instead of alcohol at the end of his feast thinking the guests would be too drunk to tell the difference.

Before her marriage to Joseph she dated a number of high profile Judeans and, controversially some Romans including Pontius Pilate, a tempestuous relationship by all accounts which lasted up until her marriage. She did maintain a friendship with him which later soured over disagreements about his handling of her son's court case.

The Council of Nicea decided not to include her pamphlet addressing Pilate: Manus illae lavarentur, si filius tuus esset? as canon.

Details of her later life are sketchy

[shemp]

Originally Posted by Robin

There seems to be very little on Mary. Here is some of what I found:

She spent much of her earlier years as a scribe and translator in Herod's court, dealing mostly with mundane matters of tax and court hearings, but she did produce a translation of some of Ovid's poetry into Aramaic and her ligjthearted rendering of Ovid's "Dead Parrot" ode into colloquial Hebrew was much admired in its day. Reports that she had actually met the poet are almost certainly wrong since she never travelled to Rome.

A number of original works have been attributed to her but the only ones for which authenticity has been established are On Immensity and Some Clarifications on Immensity [citation required]

She used her writing and translating skills to assist the early resistance movement against the Romans, something which, when uncovered, cost her the position at court, forcing her to eke out a living as a Wedding Feast planner, something for which she had no real talent. Some court documents of the time refer to litigation by a newlywed alleging that a "Maria Scriba" served water instead of alcohol at the end of his feast thinking the guests would be too drunk to tell the difference.

Before her marriage to Joseph she dated a number of high profile Judeans and, controversially some Romans including Pontius Pilate, a tempestuous relationship by all accounts which lasted up until her marriage. She did maintain a friendship with him which later soured over disagreements about his handling of her son's court case.

The Council of Nicea decided not to include her pamphlet addressing Pilate: Manus illae lavarentur, si filius tuus esset? as canon.

Details of her later life are sketchy

It was just pining for the fjords.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by shemp

It was just pining for the fjords.

Exoptat angustos sinus habere praeruptas rupes.

[Robin]

Non curae sibi est pulcherrima plumis.

[arthwollipot]

Haec psittacus mortuus est.

[Robin]

O Etiam Venetus Norvegus. Quid mali est?

Dicam quid mali est, mi puer. Mortuus est, hoc mali est!

[arthwollipot]

Omnia altum sonant cum Latine dicitur.

[Robin]

Psittacus, Eois imitatrix ales ab Indis, occidit.

(Actual Ovid)

[Delvo]

Vous avez tous un si mauvais latin que je comprends à peine ce que vous dites.

[arthwollipot]

Id est quod Google Translate.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by Delvo

Vous avez tous un si mauvais latin que je comprends à peine ce que vous dites.

That last one of mine. That was an actual Roman. From Rome! Ancient Rome!

So if he can't speak Latin, what chance do we have?

[Robin]

The Ovid verse I quoted translates:

"The parrot, the imitative bird sent from the Indians of the East, is dead."

Whereas Google translates it as:

"The parrot, imitating the bird from the East Indians, kills it."

I am glad I don't use Google translate for anything important.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Delvo

Vous avez tous un si mauvais latin que je comprends à peine ce que vous dites.

Voulez-vous coucher avec moi ce soir seigneur? Dieu veux-tu coucher avec moi ?

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[Robin]

Even many Christian Bible scholars say that we can't claim to know anything at all about Jesus's family or background. And these are the people who say there is a "historical Jesus".

So there is no historical Mary, we have no reason to believe there ever was such a person and little to go on about what sort of a life someone in that community would have had.

Other than it would probably not be the kind of life I imagined for her.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Robin

Even many Christian Bible scholars say that we can't claim to know anything at all about Jesus's family or background. And these are the people who say there is a "historical Jesus".

So there is no historical Mary, we have no reason to believe there ever was such a person and little to go on about what sort of a life someone in that community would have had.

Other than it would probably not be the kind of life I imagined for her.

I'm pretty confident that if there was a historical Jesus he had a historical mother at some point, although we might not know anything about her other than that she had at least one child. I'm even willing to bet he had a father, too, but for some reason that one's a controversial point.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

I'm pretty confident that if there was a historical Jesus he had a historical mother at some point, although we might not know anything about her other than that she had at least one child. I'm even willing to bet he had a father, too, but for some reason that one's a controversial point.

As Christopher Hitchens use to say. It's not surprising that a Jewish Minx might tell a lie.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

As Christopher Hitchens use to say. It's not surprising that a Jewish Minx might tell a lie.

Especially if she had a child outside of marriage.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Especially if she had a child outside of marriage.

And the Jewish penalty for a woman having sex outside of marriage being death.