pope to the rest of you...

[sanjuro_ronin]

There are MANY contradictions, I'll give you a reading list by respected scholars but start with "Misquoting Jesus" which is a current book on the subject

James considered himself and all of Jesus followers JEWS. They had to be circumcized (sp?) and they had to follow the law of Moses, ie they had to be Kosher, they had to make sacrifices at the temple, etc

Paul rejected this, he preached to the gentiles, while remarkably remaining true to Judaism himself, read "Rabbi Paul" by Sponge for example

And yet Jesus at one point said that a non-jew ( a roman I think, but a non-jew for sure) would enter the kingdom of heaven before a jew because he accepted Him.

I am paraphrasing of course.

[Mas Judt]

One of the funniest conversations I ever listened too was a debate between a fundamentalist Christian and a Jewish Rabbi. I supplied the beer and it was a cracking good time... as you can imagine, it did not go well for the former.

[lkfmdc]

Three books that anyone interested in the subject of the Church should read

http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jes...4176306&sr=1-1

Misquoting Jesus
by Bart D. Ehrman

http://www.amazon.com/Liberating-Gos...4176577&sr=1-2

Liberating the Gospels: Reading the Bible with Jewish Eyes
by John Shelby Spong

http://www.amazon.com/Rabbi-Paul-Int...4176712&sr=1-1

Rabbi Paul: An Intellectual Biography (Paperback)
by Bruce Chilton

[Mas Judt]

You know, I always liked the phrase that you would know somebody by the fruits of thier labors - I've seen a lot of good stuff come out of the Christian communities - outrageous charity work - hospitals, helping the elderly, the abandoned, on and on...

While our 'elites' who feel themselves above such things never give to charity are, if anything, fairly heartless.

So, while some Christian groups do scare me with their complete abdication of rationality, most I find make great neighbors.

[lkfmdc]

Spong's book is fascinating... for example, the discussion of Jesus' work healing, and exorcising... only really understood in the conext of his Judaism

The original gospels were written in Greek, and the word we know know as "leprosy" (sp?) wasn't confined to just that disease at the time in Greek. It meant any skin infection or ailment. Of course, any skin condition meant a person was "unclean" and could not make sacrifices at the temple. Jesus "healed them" making them clean so they could re-join the community (the JEWISH community) and make sacrifices

Jesus was striving to champion those alienated by the established order at the time, which is why he butted heads with the temple. His affiliation with John was similarly controversial, babtism in the light of G'd, not necessarily in a pool set up by the temple.

Quite similar to Mohammed, very positive, very egalitarian, communial.... only to be radically changed by those that came AFTER HIM

[Water Dragon]

Religious intolerance is the backbone of Christianity. It is the entire purpose of the missionary imperaritive, baptism, the holy eucharist, and ultimately Christ's crucifiction. The essential message is;

1.We have the answers.

2.You don't.

3.Convert or be da mned.

Why is anyone surprised by this?

Naw, sounds like what 99 % of the posters here say about their Kung Fu, or MMA.

The Pope isn't saying anything that hasn't been Christian Doctrine for a long time. It's not like nobody knew this already.

Here's an interesting wrench to the whole 'which Christianity is better' debate. The modern Church, Catholic and Protestant is based off of Paul's version of Christianity. The bible also clearly states that PETER was the rock the Church was to be built on. I guess that means we're all missing the mark. <-- bonus point if you got the 'missing the mark' reference.

[mantis108]

People don't call him a conservative Pope for nothing. But then again, Catholicism is loosing it's edge on all fronts. I believe he feels that Catholicism has been experiencing the deconstruction phase and the intellectual underpinning has been largely neglected. I think he feels the need to have his archbishops and bishops to really work on theological issues. Perhaps through vigorous debates and participation of the intellectuals, he could bring a renaissance of sort in order to re-establish a standard constitution of Churches. Now if people can be ordained through on-line "Churches", you have got to ask yourself what would you do if you are the Pope and you, at least if your own evaluation, are the only real deal in the game.

If the whole exercise is about touching roots and perparing for the future, it's not entirely a bad thing. But it could be also interpreted as Catholicism is trying to assert itself on the scene of organized religion.

The poor guy certainly has a lot on his plate.

Mantis108

BTW, didn't he get rid of the concept of Limbo?

[sanjuro_ronin]

IF the Pope wants to "save" RC, he need to reform the Vatican first and then he will be in a position to "lead by example".

[Firehawk4]

If one one wants to know what is original Christianity they should look up what is called Jewish Christianity and i dont mean Jews that are taught Gentile Christianity , basicaly there are two factions within Jewish Christianity they are Nazarean Jewish Christianity and Ebionite Jewish Christianity , The Ebionites dont fully agree with the Nazareans as the Ebiontes some of them come from the Pharasis these where Pharasis diciples of Christ in the early Church , The Ebionites believe that Jesus was just a Prophet and that the Christ decended upon him at his baptism but the Nazareans believe that Jesus whas Christ incarnate in other words that he was God in the flesh . What happen in the early church is there was a split in the church about Paul the Ebionite Jewish Christians do not except Paul or his writings where as the nazareans do . Both groups claim to come from the diciples and James the Just Jesus brother as there leaders . The Ebionites and Nazareans practiced a very strict kind of Christianity that is they followed the Jewish Law that is the Ten Commandments the added Law that is called the Mosaic Law or Leviticle Law there is a difference between the Ten Commandments and the added Mosaic Law or Leviticle Law or added Law the Mosiac Leviticle Law will have you keeping Jewish Holydays and ordinances these ordinaces and Holydays James said the Gentile Christians did not have to keep only that Gentile Christians abstan from things Sacrficed to Idols, Fornication and one other but i cant remember what it is some of it is written in Acts 15 on the Gentiles , the Ebionite Jewish Christians rejected Paul and the Gentiles that did not keep these Jewish Laws but the Nazarean Jewish Christians excepted them . There was also the Sacrafishle Law that was done away with when Jesus died on the Cross so that Law was done away with , Jewish Christianity Basicaly kept the Ten Commandments , Sabbath , Holydays Food Laws , It was very Jewish . After the Temple fell in 68 AD the Jewish Christians spread into certian places in Syria and Damascus John the Apostle was known to have went to Asia Minor where he taught as his student Polycarp who had some battles with what at the time was Gentile Christianity in Rome over Passover that is what was the correct date of Passover the Christians that come from John the Apostle and Polycarp are known as Quartodecimans that is because they kept the Passover on the 14th of Abib of the Jewish calender . The Quartodecimans and the Jewish Christian Ebionites and Jewish Christian Nazareans where considered Heretics by the Roman Church at the Council of Niecia in the 320 s Ad .

[Firehawk4]

Polycarp lived to about the 150 s Ad and had some conflicts with the Roman Church over Passover so did a another Bishop called Polycrates with Roman Bishop Victor in Rome over Passover in the 160s Ad Bishop Victor excumunicated the Qartodeciman Christians in Asia Minor the modern Western Part of Turkey these Quartodecimans did not listen to Bishop Victor instead the Quartodeciman Christian kept there beliefs in there own Churches in Asia Minor in the second Century .The one thing that is strange is that the first time a Bishop of the Roman Church is called Pope is not until the 300 s Ad before that the Roman Church just had Bishops and a College of Presberters that led there church , The Roman Church claims there Authority on the Basis that Peter the Apostle gave all his power and authority as the head Apostle to a successor named Linus in Rome but there is no proof that Peter was ever in Rome , why would some Bishop in Rome be head of the Church in about 68 Ad after Peter died when there where other Apostles still alive like the Apostle John who was supposed to have lived to about 110 Ad in Asia Minor would not John be head of the Church . The Bible says that the Church isbuilt on the Foundations of the Apostles and Prophets with Jesus Christ being the Cheif corner stone there for Jesus Christ is the head of the Church , then the Bible gives a list of those as heads in the Church first is the Apostles and then Prophets and then Bishops and Evangilist and others so if some Bishop in Rome named Linus or the second Bishop Rome named Clement was made Bishop of Rome by Peter and Peter gave all his Authority to these Bishops of Rome while any of the other Apostles was alive goes agianst what the Bible says about the Apostles being heads first in the Church then Prophets then Bishops , I think That John was the head of the Church while he was alive in Asia Minor becuase the other Apostles had died at that time, where John has been known to have been directing the Churches there and instructing Polycarp his student who became a Bishop in Asia Minor . But Jesus is really the Head of the Church .

[Ben Gash]

The original gospels were written in Greek, and the word we know know as "leprosy" (sp?) wasn't confined to just that disease at the time in Greek. It meant any skin infection or ailment. Of course, any skin condition meant a person was "unclean" and could not make sacrifices at the temple. Jesus "healed them" making them clean so they could re-join the community (the JEWISH community) and make sacrifices

Not really a contraversial issue, there are whole chapters in the Torah dealing with the diagnosis and management of leprosy which make this quite clear. Even by our modern standards there are several forms of leprosy less severe than the Hansen's disease that leprosy evokes.
To say the gospels were written generations after Jesus is a bit of a stretch. 3 of them were written between 50-70 AD, and only John's was written later, but his is a first hand account and much more intellectually challenging, so it's conceivable it just took longer to write.
Again, it's not really contraversial to point out that the bulk of Christ's mission was to the Jews, and as such was framed in that context. Indeed, one of the big problems a lot of people have with gospel study is that they fail to comprehend that it's addressed to Jews. This is one of the major failings of the non-contextual literalism found in many so-called fundamentalist churches.
The story of Peter and Paul's missions to the gentiles is well documented in Acts, soI don't really feel inclined to go over it right now. You can read Acts here
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...r=1&version=50
and if you've got any specific questions that'll be cool.
The problem with a lot of "fundamentalist" christians is that they have very weak fundamentals. They're very poor on serious Bible study, and in the old testament at best they've read Psalms and half of Genesis This would make them totally ill equipped to have any kind of conversation with a Rabbi.
On the original topic, perhaps these are relevant.
Mark, Chapter 9
Jesus Forbids Sectarianism

38 Now John answered Him, saying, “Teacher, we saw someone who does not follow us casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow us.”
39 But Jesus said, “Do not forbid him, for no one who works a miracle in My name can soon afterward speak evil of Me. 40 For he who is not against us is on our[c] side. 41 For whoever gives you a cup of water to drink in My name, because you belong to Christ, assuredly, I say to you, he will by no means lose his reward.

1 Corinthians 3
Sectarianism Is Carnal
1 And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. 2 I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able; 3 for you are still carnal. For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men? 4 For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not carnal?

[Kristoffer]

At least Palpatine had cool powers. He threw senatorial pods like paper, shot lighting and could do lots of flips with a lightsabre. What's Ratzinger done? He put on some clothes.

...like batman

[synack]

Who cares?

[Ben Gash]

3 pages worth of posters apparently Not to mention millions upon millions of Christians

[AJM]

I've got the real Hol- Rom-- Catho--- Church.
Benny and Saul/Paul are charletans.