3 ms·
> it's "there's no other historical record of people telling this story". right, that is the suppression theory that i am saying i agree with > The claim is n
by justifier 10y ago
> it's "there's no other historical record of people telling this story".
right, that is the suppression theory that i am saying i agree with
> The claim is not "this isn't church doctrine"
i am making this claim..
how could you keep women from having seats of power in your religion if the guy you claim the whole thing is based on believed 'the other sex' to be 'worthy' of both hearing the truth and speaking it?
- hyperpape 10y agoThe point is that the church said many things were heretical and tried to suppress those beliefs. And we know about it, because we have records of: 1) the church saying "that guy over there is a heretic" 2) the writings of the heretic So what you're saying is that in this one case, the Church was able to completely stamp out a widespread belief to the point that we have no reference to people believing it, even though it wasn't able to do so in other cases that it also deemed heretical? That seems implausible. P.S. "> Never before had an ancient manuscript alluded to Jesus’s being married." That is what I referred to as "the claim".