Is Marriage based upon religion?

[Pope Joan]

Marriage is secular. Religion tags along for the ride because it has something to gain by doing so, but marriage rites predate organized religion.

Marriage can be secular, or it can be sacred. Just like bathing or drinking wine.

And I say the secular came first. Look at Roman history.

Just like Easter eggs came before Easter.

[Ethel mermania]

That is true, but consent of the wife only became an integral feature (in the West) with Christianity, so our conception of what "marriage" meant was radically altered through that.

The Talmud recounts that with no consenting wife, there is no marriage. And assuming the Oral Tradition of the Talmud that's waaay before Christianity.

Mesopotamians had marriage 4000 years. ago.

I don't understand this thread, is it about where does marriage come from, or what is it now?

[Morr]

That is true, but consent of the wife only became an integral feature (in the West) with Christianity, so our conception of what "marriage" meant was radically altered through that.

The Talmud recounts that with no consenting wife, there is no marriage. And assuming the Oral Tradition of the Talmud that's waaay before Christianity.

Since I consider pre-Christian Judaism to be the Catholic Church, this only makes for a semantic correction to my point.

[Morr]

Marriage can be secular, or it can be sacred. Just like bathing or drinking wine.

And I say the secular came first. Look at Roman history.

Just like Easter eggs came before Easter.

That's true, but it was a contract between a husband and a father than, rather than a husband and a wife.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

The Talmud recounts that with no consenting wife, there is no marriage. And assuming the Oral Tradition of the Talmud that's waaay before Christianity.

Since I consider pre-Christian Judaism to be the Catholic Church, this only makes for a semantic correction to my point.

Oh wow, this is definitely rich and hilarious. Stupid, but rich and hilarious.

[Morr]

Since I consider pre-Christian Judaism to be the Catholic Church, this only makes for a semantic correction to my point.

Oh wow, this is definitely rich and hilarious. Stupid, but rich and hilarious.

This is the orthodox position in Christianity.

[Menassa]

The Talmud recounts that with no consenting wife, there is no marriage. And assuming the Oral Tradition of the Talmud that's waaay before Christianity.

Since I consider pre-Christian Judaism to be the Catholic Church, this only makes for a semantic correction to my point.

You see, the problem with that notion is that the Talmud exists in written form today. It was codified in about 500 CE after the creation of Christianity.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Oh wow, this is definitely rich and hilarious. Stupid, but rich and hilarious.

This is the orthodox position in Christianity.

This may, may be the orthodox position in Catholicism (I grew up Catholic and I never heard anyone utter such a thing). Still doesn't mean it's correct.

[Menassa]

Oh wow, this is definitely rich and hilarious. Stupid, but rich and hilarious.

This is the orthodox position in Christianity.

I highly doubt the Orthodox position in Christianity assumes that the Jewish Oral Tradition is correct.

That would be rather contradictory.

[Meryuma]

Nah, religion doesn't have a monopoly on marriage. Historically, marriage has also been a socially held ceremony without any religious undertones.

That is true, but consent of the wife only became an integral feature (in the West) with Christianity, so our conception of what "marriage" meant was radically altered through that.

Source?

The Talmud recounts that with no consenting wife, there is no marriage. And assuming the Oral Tradition of the Talmud that's waaay before Christianity.

Since I consider pre-Christian Judaism to be the Catholic Church, this only makes for a semantic correction to my point.

You have no ownership of other cultures' traditions, especially ones that members of of your religion wanted to destroy for centuries.

[Morr]

Since I consider pre-Christian Judaism to be the Catholic Church, this only makes for a semantic correction to my point.

You see, the problem with that notion is that the Talmud exists in written form today. It was codified in about 500 CE after the creation of Christianity.

Right, but you're the one alleging that it is simply the writing down of rules which were upheld by the Church since long before they were written down (what Christians call "sacred tradition").

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

You see, the problem with that notion is that the Talmud exists in written form today. It was codified in about 500 CE after the creation of Christianity.

Right, but you're the one alleging that it is simply the writing down of rules which were upheld by the Church since long before they were written down (what Christians call "sacred tradition").

Do you even know anything about the history of the Catholic Church? Anything at all?

[Menassa]

You see, the problem with that notion is that the Talmud exists in written form today. It was codified in about 500 CE after the creation of Christianity.

Right, but you're the one alleging that it is simply the writing down of rules which were upheld by the Church since long before they were written down (what Christians call "sacred tradition").

I allege that the Oral Tradition exists hand in hand with the Bible (Written Tradition). However, I would never say that the Talmud supports or goes along with Christianity. On many accounts, the Catholic Church scourged, censored, and burned copies of the Talmud.

[Morr]

Source?

http://www.historytoday.com/jeremy-gold ... al-england

You have no ownership of other cultures' traditions, especially ones that members of of your religion wanted to destroy for centuries.

Since I actually believe in God and his covenants, and I consider the Christian covenant to be from his Church, I must disagree and say that Christianity is the true continuation of the original Church founded by God long before, and a fulfillment of his covenant. Any Christian who does not agree, is a Gnostic or an atheist Christian or someone like that.

[Morr]

Right, but you're the one alleging that it is simply the writing down of rules which were upheld by the Church since long before they were written down (what Christians call "sacred tradition").

I allege that the Oral Tradition exists hand in hand with the Bible (Written Tradition). However, I would never say that the Talmud supports or goes along with Christianity. On many accounts, the Catholic Church scourged, censored, and burned copies of the Talmud.

Because a lot of it says stuff that can be interpreted as anti-Christian, and was written long after Christianity started. The Joshua being boiled in dung was believed by many to be a crack at Jesus. But anyway, we're talking about the part of the Talmud based an oral tradition you claim pre-dates Christ--where the Talmud was burned, it had little to do with that.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Source?

http://www.historytoday.com/jeremy-gold ... al-england

You have no ownership of other cultures' traditions, especially ones that members of of your religion wanted to destroy for centuries.

Since I actually believe in God and his covenants, and I consider the Christian covenant to be from his Church, I must disagree and say that Christianity is the true continuation of the original Church founded by God long before, and a fulfillment of his covenant. Any Christian who does not agree, is a Gnostic or an atheist Christian or someone like that.

You're talking nonsense. Some contemporary Catholics say that the Catholic Church is the continuation of the congregation founded by Jesus, not God, but this just BS. This Church you ascribe to was an amalgamation of traditions, including Pagan ones, founded in the 300s AD. Heck, check the rituals involved in choosing the Pope. Check Pope regalia. Seeing this, it is absurd to say the Church is some sort of continuation of the one founded by Jesus. Their traditions are so different it is... wow, it is stupid to even think one is the continuation of the other.

[Olthar]

Source?

http://www.historytoday.com/jeremy-gold ... al-england

You have no ownership of other cultures' traditions, especially ones that members of of your religion wanted to destroy for centuries.

Since I actually believe in God and his covenants, and I consider the Christian covenant to be from his Church, I must disagree and say that Christianity is the true continuation of the original Church founded by God long before, and a fulfillment of his covenant. Any Christian who does not agree, is a Gnostic or an atheist Christian or someone like that.

I believe that Hinduism is the retroactive continuation and fulfilment of the Christian covenant, and anyone who says otherwise is a Shinto Taoist.

[Nelson R Mandela]

Not always.

[Menassa]

I allege that the Oral Tradition exists hand in hand with the Bible (Written Tradition). However, I would never say that the Talmud supports or goes along with Christianity. On many accounts, the Catholic Church scourged, censored, and burned copies of the Talmud.

Because a lot of it says stuff that can be interpreted as anti-Christian, and was written long after Christianity started. The Joshua being boiled in dung was believed by many to be a crack at Jesus. But anyway, we're talking about the part of the Talmud based an oral tradition you claim pre-dates Christ--where the Talmud was burned, it had little to do with that.

All of the tradition in the Talmud concerning legal matters pre-dates Jesus. Many of the supposed 'anti-Christian' sentiment in the Talmud also pre-dates Jesus.

If you decide to accept of the legal matters in the Talmud and Christianity here's what you lose:
The Trinity (The Talmud stresses that God is only one divine being.)
Original Sin (The Talmud does not believe the sin of Adam to be any more significant than the sin of Moses.)
A divine Messiah (The Talmud asserts that the Messiah will be a human being with no divine properties.)
Who the correct Church is. (The Talmud says that the tradition of God has and will always remain with the Jews.)
Jesus could not have been a prophet (The Talmud notes that the last prophet was Malachi.)
Sin and Atonement (The Talmud says that you do not need to believe in Jesus to be atoned from your sins.)

[Menassa]

http://www.historytoday.com/jeremy-gold ... al-england


Since I actually believe in God and his covenants, and I consider the Christian covenant to be from his Church, I must disagree and say that Christianity is the true continuation of the original Church founded by God long before, and a fulfillment of his covenant. Any Christian who does not agree, is a Gnostic or an atheist Christian or someone like that.

I believe that Hinduism is the retroactive continuation and fulfilment of the Christian covenant, and anyone who says otherwise is a Shinto Taoist.

I believe that the Bahai faith is the single continuation of any form of religion ever in the history of the universe and other universes always.

[Morr]

You're talking nonsense. Some contemporary Catholics say that the Catholic Church is the continuation of the congregation founded by Jesus, not God, but this just BS.

That the Church is the official continuation of the Church founded by God is the official position of every single Church with has Apostolic Succession, and it is stated very clearly in the New Testament. Christ is a fulfillment of OT, he is the Passover Lamb who saves us by marking our doors with his blood, he's the Jewish Messiah.

This Church you ascribe

Subscribe.

to was an amalgamation of traditions, including Pagan ones, founded in the 300s AD. Heck, check the rituals involved in choosing the Pope. Check Pope regalia.

The Pope's hat wasn't even invented until several hundred years after the demise of paganism.

Seeing this, it is absurd to say the Church is some sort of continuation of the one founded by Jesus. Their traditions are so different it is... wow, it is stupid to even think one is the continuation of the other.

Of course their traditions are different, they're a new covenant. We don't even do circumcision anymore, one joins the Church through baptism. Hebrews 8:13, In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.. The New Covenant takes the Church away from blood, we are no longer about blood descent from Abraham (Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham), our priestly succession, like Christ's Apostles, is no longer based on blood descent. The sacrificing of a lamb is replaced by Christ's sacrifice, his blood is wine, Passover is replaced by communion, etc. All these changes reflect the fulfillment of the Old Covenant by Christ.

[The Serbian Empire]

I believe it's based on the power of love!

[Morr]

Because a lot of it says stuff that can be interpreted as anti-Christian, and was written long after Christianity started. The Joshua being boiled in dung was believed by many to be a crack at Jesus. But anyway, we're talking about the part of the Talmud based an oral tradition you claim pre-dates Christ--where the Talmud was burned, it had little to do with that.

All of the tradition in the Talmud concerning legal matters pre-dates Jesus. Many of the supposed 'anti-Christian' sentiment in the Talmud also pre-dates Jesus.

If you decide to accept of the legal matters in the Talmud and Christianity here's what you lose:
The Trinity (The Talmud stresses that God is only one divine being.)
Original Sin (The Talmud does not believe the sin of Adam to be any more significant than the sin of Moses.)
A divine Messiah (The Talmud asserts that the Messiah will be a human being with no divine properties.)
Who the correct Church is. (The Talmud says that the tradition of God has and will always remain with the Jews.)
Jesus could not have been a prophet (The Talmud notes that the last prophet was Malachi.)
Sin and Atonement (The Talmud says that you do not need to believe in Jesus to be atoned from your sins.)

I don't accept all legal matters of the Talmud, especially since its oldest written form was assembled long after Christ by people with extremely anti-Christian sentiments. I'm saying that if consent by the woman was established by Jews before Christ, then I consider Christianity an extension of that law.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

You're talking nonsense. Some contemporary Catholics say that the Catholic Church is the continuation of the congregation founded by Jesus, not God, but this just BS.

That the Church is the official continuation of the Church founded by God is the official position of every single Church with has Apostolic Succession, and it is stated very clearly in the New Testament. Christ is a fulfillment of OT, he is the Passover Lamb who saves us by marking our doors with his blood, he's the Jewish Messiah.

This Church you ascribe

Subscribe.

to was an amalgamation of traditions, including Pagan ones, founded in the 300s AD. Heck, check the rituals involved in choosing the Pope. Check Pope regalia.

The Pope's hat wasn't even invented until several hundred years after the demise of paganism.

The Pope's hat comes from the Mithraic tradition, predating Christianity. Trinitarian tradition is also of pagan origin. Church offices are mirrored from Roman lore. Shit, even the title the Pope uses of Supreme Pontiff is from Rome's emperor worship.

So, you were telling us what again? Ah yes, nothing of import.

[Olthar]

All of the tradition in the Talmud concerning legal matters pre-dates Jesus. Many of the supposed 'anti-Christian' sentiment in the Talmud also pre-dates Jesus.

If you decide to accept of the legal matters in the Talmud and Christianity here's what you lose:
The Trinity (The Talmud stresses that God is only one divine being.)
Original Sin (The Talmud does not believe the sin of Adam to be any more significant than the sin of Moses.)
A divine Messiah (The Talmud asserts that the Messiah will be a human being with no divine properties.)
Who the correct Church is. (The Talmud says that the tradition of God has and will always remain with the Jews.)
Jesus could not have been a prophet (The Talmud notes that the last prophet was Malachi.)
Sin and Atonement (The Talmud says that you do not need to believe in Jesus to be atoned from your sins.)

I don't accept all legal matters of the Talmud, especially since its oldest written form was assembled long after Christ by people with extremely anti-Christian sentiments. I'm saying that if consent by the woman was established by Jews before Christ, then I consider Christianity an extension of that law.

Things in the Talmund that agree with you: real.
Things in the Talmund that disagree with you: propaganda.
How convenient.