Progressive tenets of Jesus Christ

ZHawke wrote: Saw this and was wondering if anyone knows whether it is true or not:
Whether it makes a difference if it is, in fact, true I suppose will be open to discussion.

It's true. The earliest mention in a non-biblical source is Tacitus in ca. AD 116. But even that reference is disputed.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

You can also read up on the earliest extant biblical writings at

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript

This isn't necessarily with regard to the progressive tenets of Jesus Christ per se, but it goes to how religion, in this case Christianity, has arguably evolved over time and continues to evolve vis a vis marriage equality and what God sanctions in a relationship:

Records of Christian same sex unions have been discovered in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, in Istanbul and in the Sinai, covering a thousand-years from the 8th to the 18th century.

humanitysteam.org/node/3299

And, on the other side of the intent of my previous post:

These problems of interpretation are not uncommon in Boswell's work and serve to distort the meaning of adelphopoiesis, which appears, from the passages cited, more related to adoption and the spiritual relationship associated with Baptism than with marriage, and which does not imply any sexual dimension.

www.newoxfordreview.org/reviews.jsp?did=1294-viscuso

Personally, I don't think this author has made an irrefutable argument, but that's just me.

This doesn't necessarily address the issue of whether Christ was a "progressive", but does, IMO, go to the discussion at hand regarding religion and how Christ's teaching have arguably been distorted and misinterpreted over the centuries:

www.faithinpubliclife.org/newsroom/press...tify-immoral-budget/

Let's just say there are a few collectivist activists within the Church and leave it at that Z. Catholic teaching isn't that it is the responsibility of the State to provide for the poor via redistributing the wealth of the populace. Never has been, never will be.

PrintSmith wrote: Let's just say there are a few collectivist activists within the Church and leave it at that Z. Catholic teaching isn't that it is the responsibility of the State to provide for the poor via redistributing the wealth of the populace. Never has been, never will be.

Seriously, P? You would dismiss, out of hand, the statement made by a large number of prominent Catholic leaders as being "collectivist"?

Nearly 60 prominent theologians, priests, nuns and national Catholic social justice leaders released a statement today refuting Rep. Paul Ryan’s claim that his GOP budget proposal reflects Catholic teaching on care for the poor, which he made in an interview earlier this week with the Christian Broadcasting Network. The group of Catholic leaders — including a former high-ranking U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops official, a priest in Rep. Ryan’s district and the leadership team of the Sisters of Mercy of the Americas — called on Ryan to “reconsider his radical budget proposal and refrain from distorting Church teaching.”

Seriously Z, I would dismiss them, mostly because there are others who confirm what I have said to be the case. One of these is the current Archbishop of Denver:

I am not a policy expert. I do not know whether Paul Ryan’s fiscal plans are the right plans for America’s present- or her future. I cannot, nor would I, endorse him or any other candidate. But claims that Paul Ryan’s plan run deeply counter to Catholic social teaching are unfounded and unreasonable. Some criticisms are so insidious that one wonders whether the critics have actually read Ryan’s plans.

www.catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=2268

PrintSmith wrote: Seriously Z, I would dismiss them, mostly because there are others who confirm what I have said to be the case. One of these is the current Archbishop of Denver:

I am not a policy expert. I do not know whether Paul Ryan’s fiscal plans are the right plans for America’s present- or her future. I cannot, nor would I, endorse him or any other candidate. But claims that Paul Ryan’s plan run deeply counter to Catholic social teaching are unfounded and unreasonable. Some criticisms are so insidious that one wonders whether the critics have actually read Ryan’s plans.

www.catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=2268

Seriously, P, the fact these theologians, priests, etal, have sent what they did to the Vatican for consideration takes precedence in my own mind over what one Archbishop (of Denver), or you for that matter, has to say about this issue. Granted, the Archbishop of Denver has sway. So do those who signed the letter to the Vatican, perhaps even more so.

Still waiting on your response to my previous post.

Not sure which post you are referring to Z, you'll have to be a bit more specific than that.

With regards to the current discussion, I have given you one person who illuminated proper Catholic teaching with regards to Ryan's claim that his budget was consistent with Catholic tents. To pretend that Archbishop Aquila's is a sole dissenting voice in the hierarchy in the Catholic Church regarding what the "social justice leaders" within the Catholic community said is disingenuous at best.

PrintSmith wrote: Not sure which post you are referring to Z, you'll have to be a bit more specific than that.

With regards to the current discussion, I have given you one person who illuminated proper Catholic teaching with regards to Ryan's claim that his budget was consistent with Catholic tents. To pretend that Archbishop Aquila's is a sole dissenting voice in the hierarchy in the Catholic Church regarding what the "social justice leaders" within the Catholic community said is disingenuous at best.

The one you went silent on regarding Fugelsang's meme, P.

I'm not pretending anything regarding Archbishop Aquila's dissenting voice. I merely tried to make the point there are others within the Catholic Church that signed and sent a letter to the Vatican that do not agree with the position taken by Archbishop Aquila. Nowhere did I put it out there his was the "sole dissenting voice". That's a spin you put on it.