New Vatican leader raises celibacy question

[garbon]

Stop being Razzy, lest you be smote.  In His mercy.

He can't help it. Let him be.

[Razgovory]

Stop being Razzy, lest you be smote.  In His mercy.

What exactly does every one mean by "Being Razzy"?

[dps]

You could as well argue that women should not be allowed to even be nuns, since none of his apostles were women.

That would probably actually be more logically consistant, I think.

[Admiral Yi]

What exactly does every one mean by "Being Razzy"?

In this particular case your Razzishness consists of in effect calling Meri a liar without providing any evidence to refute her claim.  If you think she's wrong, explain why you think she's wrong.  If you are just curious and would like her to give more detail, ask nicely and don't act like a rabid chihuahua.

[merithyn]

I'm pretty sure that there were books left out of the Bible that showed women as having a more active roll in Christ's life.

Which books, left out by who, and when?

Well, the Gospel of Mary in the Nag Hammadi shows Mary Magdalene to have been as much of an apostle as the other 12. It's a Gnostic text, though, which is why it was probably left out. There are also the Gospels of Thomas and Phillip, which seem to support this idea.

No one knows for sure who left out which books, but we do know these texts were written at roughly the same time as the other 27 books of the New Testament, and they were not included in the Bible.

[merithyn]

You could as well argue that women should not be allowed to even be nuns, since none of his apostles were women.

That would probably actually be more logically consistant, I think.

That's completely disregarding the role of the priest versus the role of the nun.

[jimmy olsen]

I think there are people who are perfectly happy not having a wife or a family.

Yeah, but nobody believes you're happy.

[Eddie Teach]

Stop being Razzy, lest you be smote.  In His mercy.

What exactly does every one mean by "Being Razzy"?

It's a less elegant form of being grumblery.

[Berkut]

You could as well argue that women should not be allowed to even be nuns, since none of his apostles were women.

That would probably actually be more logically consistant, I think.

That's completely disregarding the role of the priest versus the role of the nun.

But those roles are predicated in the same social environment that includes a completely sexist culture. Of course the roles are different, the role of the "nun" was made so women who cannot do anything more have SOMETHING to do.

So that is putting the cart before the horse.

I have no doubt whatsoever that if all these decisions about who can do what, and even what the fundamental "role" of a nun versus a monk versus a deacon/priest/etc..,etc. were made today, the exact same theological basis would lead to radically different conclusions.

[Razgovory]

I'm pretty sure that there were books left out of the Bible that showed women as having a more active roll in Christ's life.

Which books, left out by who, and when?

Well, the Gospel of Mary in the Nag Hammadi shows Mary Magdalene to have been as much of an apostle as the other 12. It's a Gnostic text, though, which is why it was probably left out. There are also the Gospels of Thomas and Phillip, which seem to support this idea.

No one knows for sure who left out which books, but we do know these texts were written at roughly the same time as the other 27 books of the New Testament, and they were not included in the Bible.

You know, that the Gospel of Mary is not amongst the Nag Hammadi texts right?  The Gospel of Mary likely post dates the rest of the canonical gospels and it may not even have been a widespread text (it's written in Egyptian).  In all likelihood it was never considered.  The Gospels are of Thomas and Peter are even later (though they are found in the Nag Hammadi scrolls).

[grumbler]

Jesus Christ's choice of men to be his Apostles is "interesting", but it does not seem a strong enough foundation to altogether banish women from the priesthood.

I think if you model the priesthood on the apostles, then there is a pretty compelling argument there. Of course, deciding that the priesthood should be modeled on the apostles is a choice as well. It is hardly a necessary and obvious conclusion.

As soon as the thirteenth priest was ordained the "we only do what Jesus did" argument kinda goes out the window.

[crazy canuck]

I'm pretty sure that there were books left out of the Bible that showed women as having a more active roll in Christ's life.

Which books, left out by who, and when?

To answer your questions which books, there has been a great deal written on that subject.  Here is a good source that reproduces and provides some analysis of some of the books that didnt make the cut.

http://books.google.ca/books/about/Lost_Christianities.html?id=URdACxKubDIC

Your question as to who made the decisions and when is really the story of how orthodox Christianity was formed as the various sects vied for dominance to define doctrine of the Church.  A good start on that topic is Pagel's Beyond Belief.

[crazy canuck]

I'm pretty sure that there were books left out of the Bible that showed women as having a more active roll in Christ's life.

Which books, left out by who, and when?

Well, the Gospel of Mary in the Nag Hammadi shows Mary Magdalene to have been as much of an apostle as the other 12. It's a Gnostic text, though, which is why it was probably left out. There are also the Gospels of Thomas and Phillip, which seem to support this idea.

No one knows for sure who left out which books, but we do know these texts were written at roughly the same time as the other 27 books of the New Testament, and they were not included in the Bible.

You know, that the Gospel of Mary is not amongst the Nag Hammadi texts right?  The Gospel of Mary likely post dates the rest of the canonical gospels and it may not even have been a widespread text (it's written in Egyptian).  In all likelihood it was never considered.  The Gospels are of Thomas and Peter are even later (though they are found in the Nag Hammadi scrolls).

But all you are saying is that some judgments where made as to what to include and what not to include. Jesus didnt leave an index of books to include because of course all of it was written well after the fact.  All of the books tried to put their own doctrinal spin on what the teachings of Jesus meant.  All of them are contradictory in some way - including the ones that made it into the Bible.  Even the judgment to include the Jewish texts as what we now call the Old Testament was hotly debated.  There was nothing obvious in the choices of the books that now make up the Bible at the time these doctrinal battles raged.

[crazy canuck]

The Gospel of Mary likely post dates the rest of the canonical gospels and it may not even have been a widespread text (it's written in Egyptian).  In all likelihood it was never considered.  The Gospels are of Thomas and Peter are even later (though they are found in the Nag Hammadi scrolls).

One other point Raz.  It is very difficult to know how widely other Christian writings were circulated and read.  The reason is that once the orthodox view was established the competing texts where destroyed and the followers of what became heretical beliefs were persecuted.  Keep in mind that around this time Christianity had become the religion of the state.  Until alternative texts were found through the efforts of archeology the only way bibilical scholars could get learn about the competing Christian beliefs and texts was through what the orthodox Christian writers said when refuting those other texts and beliefs.

There is a reason the Nag Hammadi scrolls were buried - to save them from the destruction from by the Church.

[merithyn]

You know, that the Gospel of Mary is not amongst the Nag Hammadi texts right?  The Gospel of Mary likely post dates the rest of the canonical gospels and it may not even have been a widespread text (it's written in Egyptian).  In all likelihood it was never considered.  The Gospels are of Thomas and Peter are even later (though they are found in the Nag Hammadi scrolls).

I meant that the Gospel of Mary is in the Nag Hammadi Library, not that it was one of the original Nag Hammadi codices. The first copy of the Gospel of Mary that was found was Coptic, yes, but most scholars agree that it was originally written in Greek in the early 2nd century, roughly the same time as the Gospels of Matthew & Luke.

The Gospels of Thomas and Peter (and Phillip) are believed to have been written in the late-1st to early-2nd centuries, again, the same time period that Matthew and Luke are believed to have been written. The manuscripts found in Nag Hammadi (where these gospels were first found) were 5th century, but bits and pieces of the writings have been found as far back as the late-1st century. So you're sort of right, but only in the same way that it's right to say that finding a copy of Shakespeare today means that his plays were clearly written in the 21st century.

Were they ever seriously considered for the Bible? I don't know, and neither do you. No one knows for certain. It's unlikely, given that they were gnostic texts, but there's absolutely no way of knowing with any certainty.

That's not the point though, is it? The point is that there were books - written in period by people living in that area - that showed women in a far better light as they related to Jesus than, say, Paul claims. That those books were left out of the Bible has created a significant series of laws for how women have been treated for centuries.