Shyone Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 "How well we know what a profitable superstition this fable of Christ has been for us?" -- Pope Leo X (1513 - 1521). Unless someone can prove otherwise, I believe this has been proven to be a fraudulent statement attributed to Pope Leo X. I've never found a reliable source confirming that he said this. I think it's likely not true that he said it. Again, I don't have all of the facts but that's my recollection. There seems to be a consensus that the quote is from a parodical play of the Protestant satirist John Bale. It was called "The Pageant of the Popes". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RationalOkie Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 "How well we know what a profitable superstition this fable of Christ has been for us?" -- Pope Leo X (1513 - 1521). Unless someone can prove otherwise, I believe this has been proven to be a fraudulent statement attributed to Pope Leo X. I've never found a reliable source confirming that he said this. I think it's likely not true that he said it. Again, I don't have all of the facts but that's my recollection. There seems to be a consensus that the quote is from a parodical play of the Protestant satirist John Bale. It was called "The Pageant of the Popes". Thanks Shy...I just wanted to alert those who are still using it that it's not a good argument. Appreciate the research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 "How well we know what a profitable superstition this fable of Christ has been for us?" -- Pope Leo X (1513 - 1521). Unless someone can prove otherwise, I believe this has been proven to be a fraudulent statement attributed to Pope Leo X. I've never found a reliable source confirming that he said this. I think it's likely not true that he said it. Again, I don't have all of the facts but that's my recollection. There seems to be a consensus that the quote is from a parodical play of the Protestant satirist John Bale. It was called "The Pageant of the Popes". Thanks Shy...I just wanted to alert those who are still using it that it's not a good argument. Appreciate the research. I'm glad I did. I thought it was real too. Oh, well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Marshall Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 [*]James, the sceptical brother of Jesus, was converted when he had similar experience. - Hmmm...let me get this strait; Jesus' birth was announced by an angel; he was born of a virgin; a star appeared directly over the location he was born; Herod slaughtered all the male children around Bethlehem to kill Jesus; Magi appeared shortly after his birth bearing valuable gifts; angels appeared at his birth; he and his family had to flee to Egypt to avoid being killed by Herod; however later his brother James was surprised to learn that his brother was “special”...whatever. Fact, we have no evidence that James ever considered his brother a god or believed that he resurrected from death. Hmmm....James, the first Atheist. I like that. Well I never claimed James was an atheist (and certainly not the first), I simply believe that that evidence points to him not believing that his brother was a god. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagnarus Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 If anyone has read this book and can explain to me why he is convinced by this evidence or can point me out to great counter articles to the Resurrection it would be greatly appreciated. There are counter articles on the resurrection here if you haven't already been there. [*]James, the sceptical brother of Jesus, was converted when he had similar experience. - Hmmm...let me get this strait; Jesus' birth was announced by an angel; he was born of a virgin; a star appeared directly over the location he was born; Herod slaughtered all the male children around Bethlehem to kill Jesus; Magi appeared shortly after his birth bearing valuable gifts; angels appeared at his birth; he and his family had to flee to Egypt to avoid being killed by Herod; however later his brother James was surprised to learn that his brother was “special”...whatever. Fact, we have no evidence that James ever considered his brother a god or believed that he resurrected from death. I'd like to play god's advocate here for a bit if I may. Dependant on whether we believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary or not James would most likely turn out to be younger than Jesus. This means he would not have been around for all the truly miraculous events which accompanied his birth. It's quite possible that either Mary and Joseph hadn't told him about these events, or that he simply didn't believe them (hey would you). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 I'd like to play god's advocate here for a bit if I may. Dependant on whether we believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary or not James would most likely turn out to be younger than Jesus. This means he would not have been around for all the truly miraculous events which accompanied his birth. It's quite possible that either Mary and Joseph hadn't told him about these events, or that he simply didn't believe them (hey would you). And I'll play Devil's Advocate. Unless Mary and Joseph kept it secret from James, his miraculous birth would have been the subject of many conversations. "You know, your brother turned water into wine - because He is God's son." "Oh, and your brother has a different father - God the father. No relation to Joseph." "It's your brother Jesus' birthday. We need to get a Christmas tree!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagnarus Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 I'd like to play god's advocate here for a bit if I may. Dependant on whether we believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary or not James would most likely turn out to be younger than Jesus. This means he would not have been around for all the truly miraculous events which accompanied his birth. It's quite possible that either Mary and Joseph hadn't told him about these events, or that he simply didn't believe them (hey would you). And I'll play Devil's Advocate. Unless Mary and Joseph kept it secret from James, his miraculous birth would have been the subject of many conversations. "You know, your brother turned water into wine - because He is God's son." "Oh, and your brother has a different father - God the father. No relation to Joseph." "It's your brother Jesus' birthday. We need to get a Christmas tree!" Or he they told him, and he didn't believe them. Your telling me that you miraculously conceived without having sex, Bullshit. His actually father is God the father, oh right "Bullshit". Heck it's our reaction. I just added in the never told about it possibility because they might have kept all that information secret because the whole reason why they moved to Nazareth was supposedly because they were afraid of word of Jesus getting back to Herod. Which if you buy into the slaughter of the innocents is actually a pretty good argument. If you believe the beginning of Matthew to be true then it's actually is quite within the bounds of possibility that his mother never told James about all the miracles when he was a child to keep word from getting out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 Or he they told him, and he didn't believe them. Your telling me that you miraculously conceived without having sex, Bullshit. His actually father is God the father, oh right "Bullshit". Heck it's our reaction. True. I just added in the never told about it possibility because they might have kept all that information secret because the whole reason why they moved to Nazareth was supposedly because they were afraid of word of Jesus getting back to Herod. Which if you buy into the slaughter of the innocents is actually a pretty good argument. If you believe the beginning of Matthew to be true then it's actually is quite within the bounds of possibility that his mother never told James about all the miracles when he was a child to keep word from getting out. How did the author of Matthew find out if James didn't know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts