Christian Discussion Thread XI: Anicetus’ Revenge

[Sundiata]

History holds weight, but the canonical texts of the Bible hold more weight in this respect.

I don't understand why your so adamant to refuse to accept a common concept of ancient palestine.

I don't. The question is, what age Mary was when she immaculately conceived Christ. History is not completely irrelevant, but neither is theology.

This is moreso a theological question, her being the theoktos.

[Celritannia]

I don't understand why your so adamant to refuse to accept a common concept of ancient palestine.

I don't. The question is, what age Mary was when she immaculately conceived Christ. History is not completely irrelevant, but neither is theology.

This is moreso a theological question, her being the theoktos.

And most information states between 12-16, the average age then when a young Jewish girl would be wed and later conceived at that time.

[Sundiata]

I don't. The question is, what age Mary was when she immaculately conceived Christ. History is not completely irrelevant, but neither is theology.

This is moreso a theological question, her being the theoktos.

And most information states between 12-16, the average age then when a young Jewish girl would be wed and later conceived at that time.

Sure, but the quality of that information as it pertains to canonical subjects is sparse or highly questionable. Do you understand why or how?

[Nakena]

And most information states between 12-16, the average age then when a young Jewish girl would be wed and later conceived at that time.

Sure, but the quality of that information as it pertains to canonical subjects is sparse or highly questionable. Do you understand why?

Because it would implicate the involvement of Ceturion Pantera?

[Celritannia]

And most information states between 12-16, the average age then when a young Jewish girl would be wed and later conceived at that time.

Sure, but the quality of that information as it pertains to canonical subjects is sparse or highly questionable. Do you understand why or how?

So we should deny basic history? Or the writings about Mary's life outside of the Bible?
Okay

[Sundiata]

Sure, but the quality of that information as it pertains to canonical subjects is sparse or highly questionable. Do you understand why?

Because it would implicate the involvement of Ceturion Pantera?

No, that's a separate question. I have no doubt that Jesus Christ was immaculately conceived.

[Nakena]

No, that's a separate question.

No. Thats exactly the question here.

[Sundiata]

Sure, but the quality of that information as it pertains to canonical subjects is sparse or highly questionable. Do you understand why or how?

So we should deny basic history? Or the writings about Mary's life outside of the Bible?
Okay

No.

Calm down, don't put words in my mouth. I'm sincerely asking you if you understand why the canonical texts hold more theological weight than historical estimates and non-canonical texts with respect to Mary's age at Christ's conception.

[Sundiata]

No, that's a separate question.

No. Thats exactly the question here.

Ok. Do you not believe that Jesus Christ was immaculately conceived and born of a virgin?

[Celritannia]

So we should deny basic history? Or the writings about Mary's life outside of the Bible?
Okay

No.

Calm down, don't put words in my mouth. I'm sincerely asking you if you understand why the canonical texts hold more theological weight than historical estimates and non-canonical texts with respect to Mary's age at Christ's conception.

Because at the time, marriage of teens was common, so they did not need to add it in the Bible, as the Catholic Encyclopedia has stated.

[Sundiata]

No.

Calm down, don't put words in my mouth. I'm sincerely asking you if you understand why the canonical texts hold more theological weight than historical estimates and non-canonical texts with respect to Mary's age at Christ's conception.

Because at the time, marriage of teens was common, so they did not need to add it in the Bible, as the Catholic Encyclopedia has stated.

No? That is not why the canonical texts hold more theological weight than historical estimates and non-canonical texts with respect to Mary's age at Christ's conception.

[Celritannia]

Because at the time, marriage of teens was common, so they did not need to add it in the Bible, as the Catholic Encyclopedia has stated.

No? That is not why the canonical texts hold more theological weight than historical estimates and non-canonical texts with respect to Mary's age at Christ's conception.

Well, considering the connacol texts have limited information about Mary, we have to look outside of them.

It's the same reason why it was obvious for the Roman to leave out salt water for brick making. Because they knew "water" obviously meant salt water.
When something is obvious in a certain time period, they do not need to add specific details.

[Lost Memories]

Sure, but the quality of that information as it pertains to canonical subjects is sparse or highly questionable. Do you understand why?

Because it would implicate the involvement of Ceturion Pantera?

Are you talking about the Disputations of Paris?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disputation_of_Paris

The Disputation of Paris, also known as the Trial of the Talmud, took place in 1240 at the court of King Louis IX of France.
It followed the work of Nicholas Donin, a Jewish convert to Christianity who translated the Talmud and pressed 35 charges against it to Pope Gregory IX by quoting a series of allegedly blasphemous passages about Jesus, Mary, or Christianity.
Four rabbis defended the Talmud against Donin's accusations.

Cause there are two cases there:
1) the story about the jesus mentioned into the Talmud, who was burning into hell into a pool of excrement, who was the son of a certain mary, married with a centurion called pantera, has to be taken to be about the messiah Jesus of christianity.
2) that jesus mentioned in the Talmud, is not the same Jesus who is the head of christianity, as the jewish rabbis claimed. So any association with everything else, centurion pantera included, is not about the Jesus of christianity.

Which of the two are you supporting?


Regardless, are you aware the source of the story about the centurion pantera, is a jewish religious text, the Talmud, which was compiled from oral stories?

[Tarsonis]

That really has nothing to do with your line of question. Regardless of what age St. Mary was married, it is irrelent to any of Sunds feelings. Even if Sun harbors a romantic ideation towards the Blessed Virgin, she's over 2000 years old at this point so what ever poisoning of the well nonsense you're playing at is expressly that, nonsense.

Things also occurred on a discord server he was apart of.
So there is more to this, but that's all I shall say.

Offsite issues are offsite. It's expressly against the rules to bring them here.

[Sundiata]

No? That is not why the canonical texts hold more theological weight than historical estimates and non-canonical texts with respect to Mary's age at Christ's conception.

Well, considering the connacol texts have limited information about Mary, we have to look outside of them.

It's the same reason why it was obvious for the Roman to leave out salt water for brick making. Because they knew "water" obviously meant salt water.
When something is obvious at a specific time, they do not need to add specific details.

The canonical texts have sufficient information about Mary. However, the question of her age at the time of Christ's conception remains inconclusive in that respect. Non-canonical texts offer a window into what could possibly be the case. However, the probability is more difficult to ascertain given the circumstances and their implications for before and after Christ was concieved.

[Celritannia]

Well, considering the connacol texts have limited information about Mary, we have to look outside of them.

It's the same reason why it was obvious for the Roman to leave out salt water for brick making. Because they knew "water" obviously meant salt water.
When something is obvious at a specific time, they do not need to add specific details.

The canonical texts have sufficient information about Mary. However, the question of her age at the time of Christ's conception remains inconclusive in that respect. Non-canonical texts offer a window into what could possibly be the case. However, the probability is more difficult to ascertain given the circumstances and their implications for before and after Christ was concieved.

We can assume a probability based on traditions and history of the region at the time.

[Tarsonis]

Well, considering the connacol texts have limited information about Mary, we have to look outside of them.

It's the same reason why it was obvious for the Roman to leave out salt water for brick making. Because they knew "water" obviously meant salt water.
When something is obvious at a specific time, they do not need to add specific details.

The canonical texts have sufficient information about Mary. However, the question of her age at the time of Christ's conception remains inconclusive in that respect. Non-canonical texts offer a window into what could possibly be the case. However, the probability is more difficult to ascertain given the circumstances and their implications for before and after Christ was concieved.

Didn't I already correct you on this in the Feminism thread?

[Sundiata]

The canonical texts have sufficient information about Mary. However, the question of her age at the time of Christ's conception remains inconclusive in that respect. Non-canonical texts offer a window into what could possibly be the case. However, the probability is more difficult to ascertain given the circumstances and their implications for before and after Christ was concieved.

We can assume a probability based on traditions and history of the region at the time.

Sure, but it wouldn't fully capture the underlying reasons for why Christ would be conceived at one specific point in her life over another. That underlying reason, that logos, is where the question gets far trickier. I wish this was an easier answer man, but it just is not.

[Sundiata]

The canonical texts have sufficient information about Mary. However, the question of her age at the time of Christ's conception remains inconclusive in that respect. Non-canonical texts offer a window into what could possibly be the case. However, the probability is more difficult to ascertain given the circumstances and their implications for before and after Christ was concieved.

Didn't I already correct you on this in the Feminism thread?

I'm not saying that historical trends hold no weight.

[Tarsonis]

Didn't I already correct you on this in the Feminism thread?

I'm not saying that historical trends hold no weight.

You're adamantly drawing a line against it, in a manner that isn't necessary in the slightest.

[Celritannia]

We can assume a probability based on traditions and history of the region at the time.

Sure, but it wouldn't fully capture the underlying reasons for why Christ would be conceived at one specific point in her life over another. That underlying reason, that logos, is where the question gets far trickier. I wish this was an easier answer man, but it just is not.

Again, we can still assume based on history. Why is it important for you to deny something that is plausible?

[The New California Republic]

Things also occurred on a discord server he was apart of.
So there is more to this, but that's all I shall say.

Offsite issues are offsite. It's expressly against the rules to bring them here.

?

There are rules against doxxing and suchlike, and I've seen there have been rulings regarding using offsite stuff that folk have said in order to troll or flame them etc, but is referring to offsite stuff if it is not being used to doxx or troll/flame/harass someone in and of itself a rule violation? I don't see anything expressly in the forum rules that says it is...

[The Blaatschapen]

Offsite issues are offsite. It's expressly against the rules to bring them here.

?

There are rules against doxxing and suchlike, and I've seen there have been rulings regarding using offsite stuff that folk have said in order to troll or flame them etc, but is referring to offsite stuff if it is not being used to doxx or troll/flame/harass someone in and of itself a rule violation? I don't see anything expressly in the forum rules that says it is...

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=260044#009 comes closest.

[The New California Republic]

?

There are rules against doxxing and suchlike, and I've seen there have been rulings regarding using offsite stuff that folk have said in order to troll or flame them etc, but is referring to offsite stuff if it is not being used to doxx or troll/flame/harass someone in and of itself a rule violation? I don't see anything expressly in the forum rules that says it is...

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=260044#009 comes closest.

Sure, but like I said I already discounted that, since in this context it's merely mentioning something that doesn't seem to meet that threshold, and if it did then it would have likely been reported already by Tarsonis.

[Sundiata]

I'm not saying that historical trends hold no weight.

You're adamantly drawing a line against it, in a manner that isn't necessary in the slightest.

Sure, but it wouldn't fully capture the underlying reasons for why Christ would be conceived at one specific point in her life over another. That underlying reason, that logos, is where the question gets far trickier. I wish this was an easier answer man, but it just is not.

Again, we can still assume based on history. Why is it important for you to deny something that is plausible?

My relationship to the question is ambivalent as there are a variety of probable as well as theologically possible answers.