The Explainer with Manolo Quezon (6pm Tuesday ABSCBN Cable News ANC) tackles the historical Jesus. I’m on the panel with Ms.Gang Badoy and UST Professor of Theology, Fr. Efren Rivera.
REMBRANDT‘s famous painting portrays the moment Jesus Christ utters that famous phrase in the Gospel of John 20:17 and immortalized in Rizal’s novel. It is the very moment of Christianity’s birth, for it is His first appearance in the canonical Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John)–after the Resurrection. Mary Magdalene is the first human being to see Him alive after the Crucifixion. Here is the Resurrection scene in Iannus 20:15-18 from the Latin Vulgate Bible:
15. Dicit ei Iesus mulier quid ploras quem quaeris illa existimans quia hortulanus esset dicit ei domine si tu sustulisti eum dicito mihi ubi posuisti eum et ego eum tollam
16. dicit ei Iesus Maria conversa illa dicit ei rabboni quod dicitur magister
17. Dicit ei Iesus noli me tangere nondum enim ascendi ad Patrem meum vade autem ad fratres meos et dic eis ascendo ad Patrem meum et Patrem vestrum et Deum meum et Deum vestrum
18. Venit Maria Magdalene adnuntians discipulis quia vidi Dominum et haec dixit mihi
The King James Version (1611) has it in English:
15. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away.
16. Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.
17. Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
18. Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the LORD, and that he had spoken these things unto her.
Now of course, it is always a surprise, (especially for the most pious) to discover that the original Gospels were written in Greek and so the original utterance would be “Meta mon apton!” in place of “Touch Me Not!” or “Noli Me Tangere!”
Now, it seems to me painfully obvious that women are second class Catholics. This all began with the suppression of ALL the female witnesses to the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, including that of His Mother (Mary) and the disciple Mary Magdalene, who was the first human being to see Jesus of Nazareth returned to Life after a three day descent into Hell. Why do the official Gospels that tell this central story of all Christianity — Matthew, Mark, Luke and John — not include the testaments of both Mama Mary and Mary Magdalene which would seem to be absolutely material and relevant to the central mystery of Christianity: the alleged miracle of the Resurrection. Many Catholics today do not realize there were many other Gospels or witness accounts or stories and recollections about a central event in human history. There are gospels attributed or associated with Mary Magdalene and Mama Mary, Judas, Thomas, and literally dozens of apocryphal Gospels that have not been vouchsafed officially by the Roman Catholic Church as have Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the so-called “canonical Gospels.”
But the insitutional and doctrinal discrimination against women in the Catholic Church goes much deeper than “tradition” or “that’s just the way it is.” In coming posts I shall examine the truly incredible MUMBO JUMBO employed to rationalize things like the all-male priesthood and marriage for clergy.
Popularity: 3% [?]
yes, i would love to read evidence on these other gospels.
Gabby:
Gospel According to Mary Magdalene is one of the gnostic gospels. Included in this gospel (translated) are these:
Google-search returns many URL’s, to include this:
http://www.gnosis.org/library/marygosp.htm
According to the Da Vinci Code crowd, it is more properly translated into English as “Dont hug me” or “Dont cling to me” or some similar ek that implies a romantic relationship between the two. I suppose the Da Vinci code crowd are prudes that dont hug unless theyre married. :-D
LOL, for the life of me, I have never gotten to reading that popular and best-selling book, Da Vinci Code (hmmm, maybe I should read it this Holy Week).
Haha. Yes you should. It will be your penitensya.
DJB,
That Biblical passage does not, i think, give any reference in any way to something called “women’s discrimination” when Jesus (pbuh)said “touch me not.” He just had something to prove in there. Just see the context of the account and don’t pervert its meaning.
For Islam’s version, see the following link:
http://www.jamaat.net/resurr/Resurrect.htm
Please see also other related literature:
http://www.jamaat.net/crux/Crux1-5.html
Danilo: The blogpost-URL you pointed to has a quote which, between Islam and Christianity, is a great divide over which people die:
I would not imagine too much meaning to such words. After all, who want to be touch after so much mauling, in pain, and on the verge of death, and delirious.
Most major religion treat women as trash. Women are animals. Women are constant slaves. Women cannot be a God.
Because God descriminate women. God discriminate brown and black skins. God has skin problem so do we, Filipinos. Filipinos trash women. Americans stump on women.
If you believe in God, it’s legal.
Republicans love Bush. Bush love waterboarding, cruel and unusual punishments. So does Republicans. Republicans happen to be very religious. So, therefore, they love waterboarding, cruel and unusual punishment along with Fire and Brimstone and original sins … SO DO WE!!!!!
Like Religion, like us!
IT’S LEGAL!!!!!
Sheesh – Christianity is a copycat of the older Mithras religion and the mysteries of Osiris/Isis/Dionysius.
Sakay naman ang mga gunggong. susginoo.
Yep the oldest book that the bible was copied from or has similarity to events was made in India.
Does religion affect your view of Panlilio should he run to replace GMA?
NO! Not at all! I’m safe with Panlilio! I’ll vote for him! I’l campaign for him! I’ll protect him! Panlilio is honest.
What good is his honesty when he’ll be saddled by Senate and Congress are gung-gong?
Panlilio is a Priest. If he can multiply sacks of
rice to feed hungry Filipinos. We will vote for him.
If Panlilio can cut clean with the church and will no longer be dictated on by Vatican on that issue of family planning which is one of the causes of poverty. And if he can stay strong against those bishops who are obviously corrupted, then vote for him!
The Gospel According to Mary Magdalen ends with this:
Chapter 10
. . .
8) But if the Savior made her worthy, who are you indeed to reject her? Surely the Savior knows her very well.
9) That is why He loved her more than us. Rather let us be ashamed and put on the perfect Man, and separate as He commanded us and preach the gospel, not laying down any other rule or other law beyond what the Savior said.
10) And when they heard this they began to go forth to proclaim and to preach.
I’m Mary Magdalen believer … anything aginst the bible i’m all for it … :)
Maybe you are a believer of the Da Vinci Code also.
There are many religious books: Koran, Holy Bible, Shik Holy Book
of India, Confucious Book, Buddhist Book, Zoroaster Book of Ancient
Persia,Mormon Book, etc…All teaches the goodness of men like:
1. The Power of the Words.
2. The Kinship with God
3. The Brotherhood of Men.
Not one book is better than the other. It is the one interpreting these Holy Books that is giving us trouble. Especially, when they
do it for their evil purposes.
Amen to that, Tasio, except for the punishment aspect.
Christians still throw up their hands to heaven in glee for the cruel and unusual punishments which right-thinking Americans has frowned upon.
Drowning (the days of Noah)
Original Sin (the AMericans are saving the children from perpetual slavery and bondage to pay for the sins of their fathers, grandfathers and forefathers)
Fire and brimstone (the future punishment)
Christians love torture … It’s no wonder Republicans OKed Bush’s cruel and unusual punishments because Republicans are conservative religious.
Ah, I get it. You don’t believe in God but you believe in Americans!
From – http://jdstone.org/cr/files/mithraschristianity.html
When the Christ myth was new Mithras and Mithraism were already ancient. Worshiped for centuries as God’s Messenger of Truth, Mithras was long revered by the Persians and the Indians (Zoroastrianism) before his faith found it’s way to Rome where His mysteries flourished in the second century AD. Every year in Rome, in the middle of winter, the Son of God was born one more, putting an end to darkness. Every year at first minute of December 25th the temple of Mithras was lit with candles, priests in in white garments celebrated the birth of the Son of God and boys burned incense. Mithras was born in a cave, on December 25th, of a virgin mother. He came from heaven to be born as a man, to redeem men from their sin. He was know as “Savior,” “Son of God,” “Redeemer,” and “Lamb of God.” With twelve disciples he traveled far and wide as a teacher and illuminator of men. He was buried in a tomb from which he rose again from the dead — an event celebrated yearly with much rejoicing. His followers kept the Sabbath holy, holding sacramental feasts in remembrance of Him. The sacred meal of bread and water, or bread and wine, was symbolic of the body and blood of the sacred bull.
Baptism in the blood of the bull (taurobolum) – early Baptism “washed in the blood of the Lamb” – late Baptism by water [recorded by the Christian author Tertullian Mithraic rituals brought about the transformation and Salvation of His adherents –an ascent of the soul of the adherent into the realm of the divine.
All over the world are sites where this “god” or that allegedly was born, walked, suffered, died, etc., a common occurrence that is not monopolized by, and did not originate with, Christianity. At the time of Jesus, as for centuries before, the Mediterranean world roiled with a wide diversity of mythical creeds and rituals. Details varied according to location and culture, but the general outlines of these faiths were astonishingly similar. Simply put, the ancients’ gods:
a. Were born on or very near our Christmas Day
b. Were born of a Virgin-Mother
c. Were born in a Cave or Underground Chamber.
d. Led a life of toil for Mankind.
e. Were called by the names of Light-bringer, Healer, Mediator, Savior, Deliverer.
f. Were however vanquished by the Powers of Darkness.
g. And descended into Hell or the Underworld.
h. Rose again from the dead, and became the pioneers of mankind to the Heavenly world.
i. Founded Communions of Saints, and Churches into which disciples were received by Baptism.
j. Were commemorated by Eucharistic meals.
Many professors of modern and past times cannot help but conclude that Jesus is based on mythical deities of old. Among these scholars number individuals such as Porphry (3rd Century), Max Muller, Ernest de Bunsen, Joseph Wheless, Albert Churchward (all of the 19th Century), and T.W. Doane (20th Century). Even Pope Leo X, privy to the truth because of his high rank, made this curious declaration, “It was well known how profitable this fable of Christ has been to us” (“The Diegesis” by Rev. Robert Taylor, footnote, p. 35).
To conclude, in light of the tremendous volume of evidence that is there for anyone interesting in taking the time to study, the underlying question of whether or not Christianity is simply the heir of mythical beliefs prevalent at the time of its development, is not a question that can simply be ignored by any Christian when pondering the origins of his/her faith.
**********
And like any other, myth, the myth of Christ is best left the way of Santa Claus – a nice story, but totally a work of fiction.
are you saying there is no historical christ? he is made up?
and all the while, i thought the reference link provided above by renato, er bong, is non-biased, as i was ready to drop my own biases and have a look at with open mind. only to discover, it’s written by an org that has gripes to grind against its own set of beliefs. nah, not worth dignifying.
Hey, I believe in Extra-Terrestials. These ETs maybe what we
believe are the Gods. We always look up to the skies when we
pray.
Mithraism and Christianity: Differences & Similarities
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10402a.htm
A similarity between Mithra and Christ struck even early observers, such as Justin, Tertullian, and other Fathers, and in recent times has been urged to prove that Christianity is but an adaptation of Mithraism, or at most the outcome of the same religious ideas and aspirations (e.g. Robertson, “Pagan Christs”, 1903). Against this erroneous and unscientific procedure, which is not endorsed by the greatest living authority on Mithraism, the following considerations must be brought forward.
(1) Our knowledge regarding Mithraism is very imperfect; some 600 brief inscriptions, mostly dedicatory, some 300 often fragmentary, exiguous, almost identical monuments, a few casual references in the Fathers or Acts of the Martyrs, and a brief polemic against Mithraism which the Armenian Eznig about 450 probably copied from Theodore of Mopsuestia (d. 428) who lived when Mithraism was almost a thing of the past — these are our only sources, unless we include the Avesta in which Mithra is indeed mentioned, but which cannot be an authority for Roman Mithraism with which Christianity is compared. Our knowledge is mostly ingenious guess-work; of the real inner working of Mithraism and the sense in which it was understood by those who professed it at theadvent of Christianity, we know nothing.
(2) Some apparent similarities exist; but in a number of details it is quite probable that Mithraism was the borrower from Christianity. Tertullian about 200 could say: “hesterni sumus et omnia vestra implevimus” (“we are but of yesterday, yet your whole world is full of us”). It is not unnatural to suppose that areligion which filled the whole world, should have been copied at least in some details by another religion which was quite popular during the third century. Moreover the resemblances pointed out are superficial and external. Similarity in words and names is nothing; it is the sense that matters. During these centuries Christianity was coining its own technical terms, and naturally took names, terms, and expressions current in that day; and so did Mithraism. But under identical terms each system thought its own thoughts. Mithra is called amediator; and so is Christ; but Mithra originally only in a cosmogonic or astronomical sense; Christ, being God and man, is by nature the Mediator between God and man. And so in similar instances. Mithraism had a Eucharist, but the idea of a sacred banquet is as old as the human race and existed at all ages and amongst all peoples. Mithra saved the world by sacrificing a bull; Christ by sacrificing Himself. It is hardly possible to conceive a more radical difference than that between Mithra taurochtonos and Christ crucified. Christ was born of a Virgin; there is nothing to prove that the same was believed of Mithra born from the rock. Christ was born in a cave; and Mithraists worshipped in a cave, but Mithra was born under a tree near a river. Much as been made of the presence of adoring shepherds; but their existence on sculptures has not been proven, and considering that man had not yet appeared, it is an anachronism to suppose their presence.
(3) Christ was an historical personage, recently born in a well-known town of Judea, and crucified under a Roman governor, whose name figured in the ordinary official lists. Mithra was an abstraction, a personification not even of the sun but of the diffused daylight; his incarnation, if such it may be called, was supposed to have happened before the creation of the human race, before all history. The small Mithraic congregations were like masonic lodges for a few and for men only and even those mostly of one class, the military; a religion that excludes the half of the human race bears no comparison to the religion of Christ. Mithraism was all comprehensive and tolerant of every other cult, the Pater Patrum himself was an adept in a number of other religions; Christianity was essential exclusive, condemning every other religion in the world, alone and unique in its majesty.
In short, which religion is an adaptation of which religion?
From Cumont to Ulansey: The Mithraic Studies Revolution
http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html
In 1975, Mithraic studies scholar John Hinnells lamented “the practical difficulty of any one scholar mastering all the necessary fields” — linguistics, anthropology, history (Indian, Iranian, and Roman!), archaeology, iconography, sociology — in order to get a grip on Mithraic studies. Hinnells of course is on target with his lament; we have made the same observation here regarding Biblical studies. But Mithraism being a relatively dead religion, there are no equivalents of seminaries keeping the Mithraic studies flame alive, and no past history of “Mithraic Fathers” who produced voluminous works and meditations upon Mithra. Thus it is not surprising that for the longest time, from the end of the 19th century until the middle of the 20th, there was only one person in the world who could be regarded as any sort of authority on Mithraism — and that was Franz Cumont.
Cumont worked with the thesis that Mithraic belief was of a continuous, fairly invariable tapestry from it’s earliest history up into the Roman period. [...]
[...] Nevertheless, because Cumont was locked into the notion of continuity, he assumed (for example) that the Iranian Mithra must have done some bull-slaying somewhere along the line, and he molded the evidence to fit his thesis, straining to find an Iranian myth somewhere that involved a bull-killing (it was done not by Mithra, but by Ahriman) and supposing that there was some connection or unknown story where the Iranian Mithra killed a bull. Cumont’s student Vermaseren [Ver.MSG, 17-18] also tried to find a connection, but the closest he could get was a story in which Soma, the god of life (who, as rain, was described as the semen of the sacred bull fertilizing the earth), was murdered by a consortium of gods which included Mithra — as a very reluctant participant who had to be convinced to go along with the plan. But simply put, the Roman Mithra wasn’t anything like the Iranian one. He dressed really sporty, with a Phrygian cap (typical headgear for Orientals of the day) and a flowing cape that would have made Superman green with envy. He slayed a cosmic bull and earned the worship and respect of the sun god. He had new friends, animals that gave him a helping hand (or paw, or claw) with the bull-slaying, as well as two torch-bearing twins who could have passed for his sons. If this was the Iranian Mithra, he obviously went through a midlife crisis at some point. The only thing that remained the same was that Mithra kept a loose association with the sun, which was something many gods had.
By the time of the First International Congress of Mithraic Studies in the early 70s, the lack of evidence of an Iranian/Roman continuity led Mithraic scholars to suspect that Roman Mithraism was “a new creation using old Iranian names and details for an exotic coloring to give a suitably esoteric appearance to a mystery cult” [MS, xiii] — and that Roman Mithraism was Mithraism in name only, merely a new system that used the name of a known ancient Eastern deity to attract urbane Romans who found the east and all of its accoutrements an enticing mystery. Think of it as repackaging an old religion to suit new tastes, only all you keep is the name of the deity! And what was that new religion? For years Mithraic scholars puzzled over the meaning of the bull-slaying scene; the problem was, as we have noted, that the Mithraists left behind pictures without captions. Thus in the 70s, one scholar of Mithraism lamented [MS.437]:
At present our knowledge of both general and local cult practice in respect of rites of passage, ceremonial feats and even underlying ideology is based more on conjecture than fact.
And Cumont himself observed, in the 50s [Cum.MM, 150, 152]:
The sacred books which contain the prayers recited or chanted during the [Mithraic] survives, the ritual on the initiates, and the ceremonials of the feasts, have vanished and left scarce a trace behind…[we] know the esoteric disciplines of the Mysteries only from a few indiscretions.
But before too long, Mithraic scholars noticed something (or actually, revived something first posited in 1869 that Cumont, because of his biases, dismissed — Ulan.OMM, 15) about the bull-slaying scene: [...]
———-
In short, whose scholarly work then is more credible, those of the pro-Christianity or those of the anti-Christianity?
Franz Cumont’s Hypothesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithraic_Mysteries
‘Mithras’ was little more than a name until the massive documentation of Franz Cumont’s Texts and Illustrated Monuments Relating to the Mysteries of Mithra was published in 1894–1900, with the first English translation in 1903. Cumont’s hypothesis, as the author summarizes it in the first 32 pages of his book, was that the Roman religion was a development of a Zoroastrian cult of Mithra (which Cumont supposes is a development from an Indo-Iranian one of *mitra), that through state sponsorship and syncretic influences was disseminated throughout the Near- and Middle East, ultimately being absorbed by the Greeks, and through them eventually by the Romans.
Cumont’s theory was a hit in its day, particularly since it was addressed to a general, non-academic readership that was at the time fascinated by the orient and its hitherto (relatively) uncharted culture. This was the age when great steps were being taken in Egyptology and Indology, preceded as it was by Max Müller’s “Sacred Books of the East” series that for the first time demonstrated that civilization did not begin and end with Rome and Greece, or even with Assyria and Babylon, which until then were widely considered to be the cradle of humanity. Cumont’s book was a product of its time, and influenced generations of academics such that the effect of Cumont’s syncretism theories are felt even a century later.
Cumont’s ideas, though in many respects valid, had however one serious problem with respect to the author’s theory on the origins of Mithraism: If the Roman religion was an outgrowth of an Iranian one, there would have to be evidence of Mithraic-like practices attested in Greater Iran. However, that is not the case: No mithraea have been found there, and the Mithraic myth of the tauroctony does not conclusively match the Zoroastrian legend of the slaying of Gayomart, in which Mithra does not play any role at all. The historians of antiquity, otherwise expansive in their descriptions of Iranian religious practices, hardly mention Mithra at all (one notable exception is Herodotus i.131, which associates Mithra with other divinities of the morning star).
Further, no distinct religion of Mithra or *mitra had ever (and has not since) been established. As Boyce put it, “no satisfactory evidence has yet been adduced to show that, before Zoroaster, the concept of a supreme god existed among the Iranians, or that among them Mithra – or any other divinity – ever enjoyed a separate cult of his or her own outside either their ancient or their Zoroastrian pantheons.”[11]
It should however be noted that while it is “generally agreed that Cumont’s master narrative of east-west transfer is unsustainable,” a syncretic Zoroastrian (whatever that might have entailed at the time) influence is a viable supposition. This does not however imply that the religion practiced by the Romans was the same as that practiced elsewhere; syncretism was a feature of Roman religion, and the syncretic religion known as the Mysteries of Mithras is a product of Roman culture itself. “Apart from the name of the god himself, in other words, Mithraism seems to have developed largely in and is, therefore, best understood from the context of Roman culture.”
Lamb of God who save the sins of the world …
That’s why I’m pure. Because 1 eat lamb. Lamb clean$e$ me 0f my s1ns! :)
A nice lamb chop dinner and a cup of aged wine will truly wash
away your sins.
Pinoy Roman Catholics have this holier-than-thou attitude.
Then you smack em with the fact that Catholicism copied from the pagan religions – watch the catholic go into squirms of denial, how could all these things he took with blind faith turn out to be figments of his imagination… oh lalalala… LOVE IT!
Hey, watch out. There may be extremist Christians in our midst who
kidnap people and burn them also in stakes. The Christian Inquisition
in the Middle Ages was approved by the Church. They torture people
to cast out the Devil. If they cannot do the job. They burn them on
the stakes as hopeless cases.
Deal with extremist Christians as they were taught to deal with you – A tooth for a tooth.
In the case of Pinoy Christians – they forget religion as soon as you show WOWOWEE… ROTFLMAO
Filipinos has to be tortured then to cast out our Devil!!! :)
In Sci-Fi Stargate SG-1 parlance…
Christians would be Believers of The Ori…
priests/prophets/saints would be The Priors
I’ll settle for Col Jack O Neill
ROTFLMAO!
‘Many Catholics today do not realize there were many other Gospels or witness accounts or stories and recollections about a central event in human history.’
Dunno DJB. I gotta hand it to you for perfect timing, atheist or scientologist as you are.
At the eve of the remembrance of the greatest event of the Christian faith, you come out with this piece. I would be expecting you to cast aspersions when the Muslims celebrate Ramadan.
Talk of sensibility and sensitivity.
Yeah. Why burst the bubble of millions who are happy with their imaginary friends. ROTFLMAO.
You know this imaginary friends flipazzes pray to? and who will solve the problems for flipazzes, thus flipazzes sit on their butt kneeling, praying, whacking themselves – but still somehow digging deeper graves. LOL
Well, you never know. Us, flipazzes might be sleeping with seventy-two virgin women, while you and DJB are ass-slapping with men. :)
There are thousands more gospels in the bowels of the Vatican waiting to be “translated”. Thousand others were disembowled for it doesn’t jive with the turkey.
wow. first hand info you got here, non-pekeng commentarista.
Ahem … ahem … emilie … I got it from the author of da Vinci Code and Angels&Demons … his name escaped me :)
… Dan Brown.
I adore this guy!
Exactly.
Where’s the frakking Gospel of Judas, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Magdalene, The Nag Hammadi scripts.
Better yet, the works of Freke and Gandy in the Jesus Mysteries – Isis/Osiris/Dionysius/Mithra – and the latest re-imagining – Jesus… ROTFLMAO
bong naman, give your keyboard time to breathe before responding to your alter ego.
hehehehe
whatever emilie =)
as to alter egos – nato is Pobreng Alindahaw on Philippinebeats.com and am yours truly… hehehehe
nato is on the west coast.
i’m in the east coast… sunny florida.
we are bisdak flipazz gunggong-loving rednecks from the hood who make pulutan of RC dogma with a sampling of questions from http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ =)
tama na ang pangilad bong.
life out there must be pretty boring that you have to create your mirror image across the other end, whichever one of you is. talk about creating mythical figures. you know whereof you speak.
unswa? virgin imong mama?
emilie:
see your shrink and have yourself checked for psychological projection.
no one’s stopping you from worshiping mythical creatures like Jesus – but my laughter at your act of worhshipping your imaginary friends will be legendary. =)
i am referring to your mythical selves.
dang you must have a mythical brain =)
****
instead of looking for Renato – try answering your myths… ROTFLMAO
Genesis
# God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn’t make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (1:14-19). 1:3-5
# God spends one-sixth of his entire creative effort (the second day) working on a solid firmament. This strange structure, which God calls heaven, is intended to separate the higher waters from the lower waters. 1:6-8
# Plants are made on the third day before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (1:14-19). 1:11
# In an apparent endorsement of astrology, God places the sun, moon, and stars in the firmament so that they can be used “for signs”. This, of course, is exactly what astrologers do: read “the signs” in the Zodiac in an effort to predict what will happen on Earth. 1:14
# “He made the stars also.” God spends a day making light (before making the stars) and separating light from darkness; then, at the end of a hard day’s work, and almost as an afterthought, he makes the trillions of stars. 1:16
# “And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.” 1:17
# God commands us to “be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over … every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” 1:28
# “I have given you every herb … and every tree … for meat.” 1:29
# “He rested.”
Even God gets tired sometimes. 2:2
# “The tree of life … and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.”
God created two magic trees: the tree of life and the tree of knowledge. Eat from the the first, and you live forever (3:22); eat from the second and you’ll die the same day (2:17). (Or that’s what God said, anyway. Adam ate from the tree of knowledge and lived for another 930 years or so (5:5). But he never got a change to eat from the tree of life. God prevented him from eating from the tree of life before Adam could eat from the tree, become a god, and live forever.) 2:9
# God makes the animals and parades them before Adam to see if any would strike his fancy. But none seem to have what it takes to please him. (Although he was tempted to go for the sheep.) After making the animals, God has Adam name them all. The naming of several million species must have kept Adam busy for a while. 2:18-20
# God’s clever, talking serpent. 3:1
# God walks and talks (to himself?) in the garden, and plays a little hide and seek with Adam and Eve. 3:8-11
# God curses the serpent. From now on the serpent will crawl on his belly and eat dust. One wonders how he got around before — by hopping on his tail, perhaps? But snakes don’t eat dust, do they? 3:14
# God expels Adam and Eve from the garden before they get a chance to eat from that other tree — the tree of life. God knows that if they do that, they well become “like one of us” and live forever. 3:22-24
# Cain is worried after killing Abel and says, “Every one who finds me shall slay me.” This is a strange concern since there were only two other humans alive at the time — his parents! 4:14
# “And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD.” 4:16
# “And Cain knew his wife.” That’s nice, but where the hell did she come from? 4:17
# Lamech kills a man and claims that since Cain’s murderer would be punished sevenfold, whoever murders him will be punished seventy-seven fold. That sounds fair. 4:23-24
# “And to Seth … was born a son.” Where’d he find his wife? 4:26
# God created a man and a woman, and he “called their name Adam.” So the woman’s name was Adam, too! 5:2
unggok. the genesis was not written during the age of modern science, so you don’t weave a scientific perspective on its literary bent, especially when this reflects how those pre-scientific minds had to wonder and ponder on their human existence.
elementary my dear watson.
shouldn’t it be renato’s turn to speak?
Renato can speak for himself. pay him a visit at
http://www.philippinebeats.com. look for Pobreng Alindahaw.
Caveat, Philippine Beats is not for the onion-skinned balat sibuyas bourgeoisie. Now if you think can handle yourself with the MMA/UFC of philippine forums – you are most welcome to explore how far your mind has made “ilad” rendering you unable to differentiate between nato and me.
indeed, you know whereof you speak to locate your alter ego.
hmm, why is renato suddenly muzzled?
Inidoro:
Ask Renato himself. Kulit mo.
Nasa HK ka ba? utak DH ka yata e.
to ask him, i would have to ask you.
ako nasa hk? wala ha. i can be both coasting the east and the west. this is cyberspace afterall.
‘Nasa HK ka ba? utak DH ka yata e.’
Bong V, para kang si Cheap Tsao? Makulit ka rin alam mo?
alangan namang di mo sagutin ng kakulitan ang kakulitan ng isang makulit.
para ka namang…. taong pumapalag dahil ang bayan mo ay tinawag na bayan ng mga katulong… subalit… ikaw ay… katulong… kapitbahay mo ay katulong.. kamag-anak mo ay katulong… tapos gusto mong tawaging kayong bayan ng mga CEO… ROTFLMAO
Inidoro – even if you are in cyberspace – your IP address will lead to your actual physical location. Pangita ug laing mailad ‘ga.
**** SECOND REFERRAL ******
And if you wanna ask Renato again – go to http://www.philippinebeats.com – and look for Pobreng Alindahaw.
Do you understand what I wrote in the previous sentence or should I translate it to Cebuano or a dialect of your choice.
****
And you believe this right????
The Law of Jealousies. If a man suspects his wife of being unfaithful, he reports it to the priest. The priest then makes her drink some “bitter water.” If she is guilty, the water makes her thigh rot and her belly swell. If innocent, no harm done — the woman is free and will “conceive seed.” In any case, “the man shall be guiltless from iniquity, and this woman shall bear her iniquity.” 5:11-31
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!
yes, please, translate it in cebuano, in its full contrivance the way renato would do it.
what is right? you can’t even properly cite the biblical source, much less provide its context.
i don’t troll. so no use endorsing websites where you leave your droppings.
Emilie:
Have Renato do the translation for you. Since you adore him that much. LOL
As to your biblical source – dang, who needs to properly cite that stupid book. Humanap ka ng Dating Daan o Jehovah at sama sama kayong mag cite. ROTFLMAO.
I gotta hand it to DJB. He sure knows how to attract high-level intellectual discourse. The comments are priceless.
Jeg, (Mischievous boy!)
Ye whose hearts are fresh and simple,
Who have faith in God and Nature,
Who believe that in all ages
Every human heart is human,
That in even savage bosoms
There are longings, yearnings, strivings
For the good they comprehend not,
That the feeble hands and helpless,
Groping blindly in the darkness,
Touch God’s right hand in that darkness
And are lifted up and strengthened;–
[from Longfellow]
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.
– Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (1995), quoted from Victor J Stenger, Has Science Found God? (2001)
To fill a world with … religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used.
– Richard Dawkins, “Religion’s Misguided Missiles” (September 15, 2001)
Over the centuries, we’ve moved on from Scripture to accumulate precepts of ethical, legal and moral philosophy. We’ve evolved a liberal consensus of what we regard as underpinnings of decent society, such as the idea that we don’t approve of slavery or discrimination on the grounds of race or sex, that we respect free speech and the rights of the individual. All of these things that have become second nature to our morals today owe very little to religion, and mostly have been won in opposition to the teeth of religion.
– Richard Dawkins, quoted in Natalie Angier, “Confessions of a Lonely Atheist,” New York Times Magazine, January 14, 2001
Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789
History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.
The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.”
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp, 30 July, 1816
Rizal’s title for his novel is an irony. As the writer’s foreword to his work says, there is a social cancer so malignant that mere touch can send the sufferer to spasms. The ancients can’t do anything but to expose the afflicted on the steps of the Temple in hope that someone can extend a blessing.
Thus the afflicted body is not in a glorified state and is corrupted.
In the case of the Resurrected Jesus, the body has been glorified and rescued from corruption (death). Mary of Magdala is cautioned from not touching Christ’s glorified body since she herself hasn’t been glorified yet. This is well within Jewish belief that a defiled body cannot be allowed to touch the holy.
Now before the moral relativists read this to mean that women are defiled, Mary of Magdala represents all of us except in one thing. She has been faithful to her Master to the extent that she kept watch while the male disciples were in fear and doubted the Resurrection. Thus Mary of Magdala was the first to have seen the Resurrected Jesus Christ.
Rizal’s intent in the Noli Me Tangere is clear and the Dominicans in UST read is so clearly and the Jesuits in the Ateneo cannot but agree. The Sacerdotes cannot by any means remove the corruption that infests the Filipino colonial body politic. No blessing from the Church can cure the cancer. Mary of Magdala couldn’t touch the glorified since it is pure, Filipinos cannot touch the corrupt because it is infected!
Rizal was ever the Victorian doctor with the right diagnosis.
This is the message of the Noli Me Tangere. What is Glorified in Philippine society is infected and thus no one dares to touch it in fear of contagion. So if you support clerics to run for office, please keep this in mind.
So, Blackshama, why is the Gospel according to Mary Magdalene apocryphal? Does not her witnessing count for something? Was it not merely the Roman male dominated politics that chose the canonical four gospels?
Paumanhin DJB. Baka wala yatang may tunay na credentials ng isang Catholic apologist sa amin dito sa FV.
Parang kailangan pa nang masugid at mahaba-habang pagsusuri ang gawin ng sinumang taga FV na magtangkang magbigay ng pahayag tungkol sa iyong katanongan (katanungan na para ba’ng hindi naman talaga nagtatanong kundi naghahanap lang ng mababagsakan ng nakahandang atake sa simbahang Katoliko).
Kung baga sa boksing, walang laban ang kakayahan namin dyan sa parang ibig mong palabasin. Di ka siguro makakahanap ng patas na maka tunggali mo dito sa FV ukol sa bagay na yan.
Ako isang Catholic apologist? LOL!
Non-Malignant,
Damaso lives!
My mission in life is to find him, expose his works and his wiles, and exterminate the mental virii he spreads.
I shall strangle him with my bare hands until the light of the father of lies goes out in them forever.
It is a war of the memes. I am only a Water Carrier, a Rizalist, 2nd class.
Ibahagi mo sana dito sa FV ang mga pangyayari kung sakaling makahanap kana ng katapat mo na isang tunay na Damaso. :-)
Baka ikaw na nga iyon, Di-Maligno?
Wala namang sumalungat sa aking kuro-kuro na hindi ko naging guro sa puno’t dulo.
Lalong hindi ako kwalipikado. Hanggang REED lang na subject sa kolehiyo ang tunay na hawak kong credentials :-)
Dawkins’ memes is nothing but a philosophical construct without empirical basis in Science.
My mission in life is to skewer ideas!
blackshama:
what is the emprical basis of the talking serpent?
April 9th, 2009 copied from Time.com, May be of relevant to bloggers discussing teh religious topic”
The fall of Mass Attendance but Not US Religiosity
Posted by David Paul Kuhn in Time.com
On the eve of Easter weekend, Gallup heavyweight Lydia Saad reported Thursday that the rate of regular church attendance by Catholics and Protestants is now equal. That marks a drastic decline in American Catholic religiosity.
One of the vestiges of American political commentary is the discussion of Catholics as a separate and unified voting bloc. That was once true, especially in the days of Joe McCarthy and John F. Kennedy. Religious Catholics today though vote more similar to religious Protestants than fellow Catholics who rarely attend mass.
For scholars of religion, the modern faith fault line is not denomination but church attendance. Weekly attendance is the best, though still imperfect, indicator of whether religion is a driving force behind a voters’ politics rather than a peripheral aspect of their lives.
Gallup data shows that 45 percent of Catholics and Protestants say they attended church in the past week. That marks a Catholic attendance decline of 30 percentage points since 1955, while the Protestant rate has slightly risen. In other words, Catholics are no longer the more orthodox body in American life.
This is far larger than politics. At first blush, the finding may seem to substantiate the mistaken impression of late that American religiosity is fading, notably bolstered recently by the American Religious Identification Survey 2008 (ARIS). The more accurate statement is that the rate of secularism is growing while the portion of passively or somewhat religious Americans is declining. On the other hand, the portion of religious Christians is generally unchanged.
True, as ARIS found, the number of Americans who describe themselves as Christian has fallen from 86 to 76 percent between 1990 and 2008 while the secularists have doubled, from 8 to 15 percent of the population. But the study also found no decline and some rise in those identifying as Pentecostal, evangelical or born again. It also found the most significant identification decline in mainline Protestants. It’s no coincidence that mainlines are less likely to attend weekly services as well.
The portion of voters who attend church at least once a week has held remarkably stable over the past half century, bobbing around four in ten. This stability is in part due to the slender increase in Protestant weekly attendance, after declining until the mid ’60s. Weekly church attenders also have a higher turnout rate than the average voter.
Gallup found that the decline in Catholic religiosity largely occurred between 1955 and 1975 and happened most precipitously among the young. These two decades of course book ended the rise and decline of the counter culture, and no less are the period of particularly Catholic and ethnic white post-war ascendancy to the upper and middle class–only for their household incomes to stagnate by the mid ’70s.
Where does this leave us today in political terms however? The God Gap is still a core divide in American politics.
Secular voters have become more firmly Democratic. Last year 67 percent of those who never attend church backed the Democratic nominee, the same as in 2006. But that marks a 7-point rise since 2004 and a 12-point rise since 2002. However in 2000, 61 percent of secular voters favored Al Gore. The secular move toward Democrats is therefore notable but not drastic. Seculars are 16 percent of voters today, a 2 point increase in eight years.
Meanwhile, while Barack Obama made gains with minority regular church attendees, likely due to issues of racial identity and/or immigration, the three in ten voters who are white weekly attenders have remained firm in their politics in recent years: only 29 percent supported the last three Democratic presidential candidates. Fifty-seven percent of born-again or evangelical Christians also backed the Republican in 2008, as they roughly did in 1980 as well.
So even amid Catholics’ waning worship, in political terms American religiosity is what it was–a powerful force in U.S. politics
Theism is on the gradual decline.
So, it “seems” it’s already starting to become a worldwide trend once again? Atheism doesn’t even have to push hard its advocacy for the gradual decline of theism to happen.
As shown in history, similar to the trend cycle of fashion, there is also a rise-and-fall cycle in theism and atheism.
During periods of real global hardships and poverty, the number of theistic people tend to increase. At periods where there is relative ease and prosperity, people tend to more atheistic.
When this global financial crisis will soon hit rock bottom and will stay there for a considerable period of time, churches and other places of “worships” when be filled with “instant believers.” 9/11 is one example of such “phenomenon”.
Religiosity is a “theistic fad”.
The suppressed gospels of Mary Magdalene among others! This gives me hope that Christ wasn’t as homosocialized as the editors of the Holy Book would have us believe!
Now, is there truth to Jesus and Magdalene getting it on?
Discussing whether the dude and mary magdalene got down, given that the question of whether the dude actually existed has not been decisively proven (and recent works by scholars Freke and Gandy showing the dude never existed) is quite… interesting.
“Your comment is awaiting moderation.”
———-
Filipino Voices Comment Policy:
All comments that contain two or more links will automatically be moderated as this is picked up as possible spam.
———-
Oops… sorry for the violation.