Original Sin?

Peter was married, Matthew a tax collector, John was the youngest. This is just the Apostles, but you do know that there were many other disciples too? Seriously try reading the Scriptures, it is clear the Apostles are fairly mature for the most part. Also try reading just about any Scripture Scholar. I did a quick search and couldn't find anyone that agrees with you. Do you have a link or a name or are you just making it up?

Quote: FrGamble

try reading the Scriptures, it is clear the Apostles are fairly mature

You mean the in the gospels,
which were written decades
after the events happened.
They were written anonymously
70-90 years after the death of
Jesus. Of course the apostles
would be portrayed maturely,
it was 5th and 6th and 24th
hand information not written
down for 75 years.

Maybe a couple of them were
married, boys got married as
early as age 13 and girls at 10
or 11. The point is, the actual
disciples were very young and
immature and inexperienced
and uneducated. That's what
you have to consider, not what
was written about them almost
a century later.

This is the problem I ran into
when I was trying to be a Xtion.
Nobody wanted to examine the
religions base roots, only what
was said about it later. This is
why Bart Ehrman is so good, he
constantly goes after the roots,
which are majorly faulty.

I really don't get you. Many times you have said over and over again that everyone in that time was uneducated and would believe anything they were so stupid. You were beaten in that argument by facts and that much of what we know today is based on the outstanding wisdom of the ancients. Now it seems you've regrouped and are just saying the Apostles and Jesus' many disciples were the young stupid and uneducated ones. It seems you will say anything as long as it fits your prejudiced view of things. How am I or anyone to take you seriously? I think even Ehrman would not follow you in regards to you writing off the Apostles because they were young or uneducated? First, you exaggerate and make them different than any other mixed group of hundreds of people. Secondly, you then fall into the trap about how these young stupid boys started the world's largest religion and why they all died a martyr's death? So you are historically wrong, inconsistent, and actually help support the miraculous nature of the Church's foundation.

Quote: FrGamble

these young stupid boys

Never did I say they were stupid. That
they were very young and inexperienced
and uneducated is a given. These are
the disciples you have to look at, not
the stories about them that were made
up long after the events happened.

They're not unlike the kids we saw at
airports in the 70's chanting hare krishna.
Very young impressionable people with
little to no real life experience. You really
can't give much credence to the young
men that followed Jesus around, anymore
than you would listen to a 17 year old
chanting hare krishna.

Talking about this obviously upsets you,
which is understandable. We never hear
about the apostles lack of age and wisdom
at the time of Jesus, all we hear is the
stories told about them decades later. The
fact is, they were mostly wet behind the
ears kids who would look up to any authority
figure who made wild claims. It's what kids
do.

It surely is what you are doing. Look I don't care what silly thing you are making up as you go; whether it's reincarnation, eternal universes, little kid Apostles, there is no God, women are bad, etc. I've learned not to take you as seriously as I once did. Just don't insult Jesus Christ or His Blessed Mother and I can put up with most of your wacky ideas.

Quote: FrGamble

I don't care what silly thing you are making up as you go.

You think I'm making up the ages
of the apostles? Seriously?

"A young man’s discipleship training under a rabbi would usually begin between the ages of 13 and 15. If this pattern was consistent with the followers of Jesus, some of them were as young as age 13 and would have still been teenagers at the time of His death, resurrection, and ascension. John was about 20 at the time of Jesus death and would have been 17 when he became a disciple."

Here is how Jesus and his apostles
are always depicted. European, tall
white men, middle aged, some even
have white beards. This is as far
from the truth as you can get.

A real pic of the last supper would
show Jesus with young teen boys,
and a few in their early 20's. Few
beards, unless 15 year old boys
somehow grew long beards then,
which isn't likely. But seeing them
for what they were, not wise men
of authority, but kids following
a rabbi, that doesn't instill much
authority. So we see silly fantasy
paintings, like these: (even Jesus
looks far older than 33)

Isn't it amazing that all revolutions and huge ideas and movements usually begin with the vigor, courage, and passion of the youth.

Quote: FrGamble

Isn't it amazing that all revolutions and huge ideas and movements usually begin with the vigor, courage, and passion of the youth.

But that's not how they're thought of or depicted.
They were changed as the movement grew, they
morphed into something they weren't. It very hard
to take seriously an end-of-the-world preaching
rabbi, who's followers are mostly teen boys.
Impressionable, inexperienced, uneducated. And
illiterate.

Over time myth and urban legend made them
into a Paul Bunyon and his blue ox Babe tale.
The real Jesus was a short average looking Jew,
short hair because long hair was not the style
then, who's followers were 14 and 15 and
17 year old boys who were beardless because
even 2000 years ago 15 year old boys were
too young to shave.

This is the savior of mankind and his loyal
band of believers. Of course this paints a
silly picture, so Jesus is always depicted
as tall, middle aged, European, long haired.
And the apostles at the last supper look
like aristocratic middle aged men, white
hair and white beards, some even going bald.

The point is, everything about this religion
is a fairy tale. Jesus is really a Boy Scout leader/
baby sitter to a bunch of kids. Like Bart
Ehrman says, every preacher/minister/priest
who attends seminary is pretty much taught
the truth on how the NT was written, and
who the apostles really were. Then 99%
of these religious leaders completely
forget all of it when they leave and get
behind a pulpit because none of it fits
the narrative they want to push.

I can't believe you've resorted to arguing about Jesus' hairstyle and the age of the Apostles. You are really grasping huh? First of all there are many different opinions among historians about what Jesus and His Apostles looked like. What they all seem to agree on is that it was not uncommon or strange. When you say these things today you are hoping people will look at 1st century Jews as if they lived today. You want to say "look how strange and silly". However, it is neither. Do you think a mixed group of disciples; some young, some a little older, was uncommon? Do you think there is something wrong with it?