Ever read Utopia?
No but I read 'Plop, the owl who was afraid of the dark', if it's any consolation.
Ever read Utopia?
No, it is not enough....SnakeLord said:No but I read 'Plop, the owl who was afraid of the dark', if it's any consolation.
So you are educated and work hard - thank God for that!
As for the bum on welfare - he probably needs a little help from those who are more educated and in a position to help.
How amusing it is that the educated forget that it is by grace that they are not found in a distant country rife with disease and pestilence and no shelter from the rains and winds.
You did not scatter yourself before you were sown my friend but rather it was a wind that took you to the place that you grew up
Your hypocrisy is laid bare for all to see.
c20H25N3o said:Just answer the question m8. Are you calling me a liar?
thanks
c20
§outh§tar said:Yep.
Does that really make the other Gospels unreliable?Medicine Woman said:M*W: TruthSeeker, I so glad to see that you do not have a closed mind and are willing to look for answers. The gospels started being written (70AD to the end of the first century AD) after Paul's epistles which were written between 51AD and 57AD. Paul's writings had a great influence over the gospels, but not the gospel of "John." Current thought is that MM wrote under the pseudonym "John." She is also believed to have written Revelations and the Gospel of Mary Magdalene which was suppressed by the RCC. Luke was Paul's good buddy, but they, too, had a falling out AFTER the gospel of Luke was written. Paul had a really hard time winning friends and influencing his peers.
Oh... I meant links to the lost gospels...Try:
.....? Who was Jesus' mother again?In all honesty, the only truth I now believe can only be attributed to what MM has written. She supposedly actually knew Jesus personally and likely was his wife and the mother of his children. That's probably why the Church made concerted effort to suppress hers and other's writings.
What do you mean by "code words"? Do you mean metaphors and allegories?The Bible was either written in code words or has been translated in code words. I just cannot see Paul having written anything symbolic or coded. On the one hand, if the Bible was 'inspired' by God, I see no logical reason for the writers of the Bible to have written it in certain recurring code words. On the other hand, even the name 'Mary Magdalene' could be code words for 'tower,' 'bitter woman,' 'temple prostitute,' or 'a person from the town of Magdal'. The seven demons Jesus was to have cast out of MM, could just be more code words meaning 'the seven seas,' or 'demon' could simply mean 'of the world.' After all, Jesus and his troops were called 'fishers of men.' I still have a faint belief that Jesus did exist but only because MM's bones were found in France, so Jesus wouldn't be far behind her. Now, if for some reason MM is symbolic of someone or something else, and she wasn't a living, breathing woman, then there is no way Jesus could have existed either. That would make them both just myths. But, if Jesus did exist, he was a married Rabbi with children, and this is who and what I believe him to be. There is also the possibility that 'Peter' was a code name for 'rock,' or it could simply mean 'of the world' or 'Godly.' There are just too many code words used in both the Old and NT. (Don't confuse this with same coding used in the book, The Bible Code). The 'holy grail,' 'san greal' or 'sang real,' is symbolic of MM's womb that carried the 'blood of Jesus.'
Excluding the gnostic gospel that bears her name, there is evidence that Mary Magdalene lived as an hermet, perhaps traveling with John and Mary, the mother of Jesus. Neither gnostic nor eastern Church records suggest she was ever married to Jesus; only the gnostic gospel mentions her kissing Jesus, on the cheek, hand, we do not know.M*W: In all honesty, the only truth I now believe can only be attributed to what MM has written. She supposedly actually knew Jesus personally and likely was his wife and the mother of his children. That's probably why the Church made concerted effort to suppress hers and other's writings.
okinrus said:Excluding the gnostic gospel that bears her name, there is evidence that Mary Magdalene lived as an hermet, perhaps traveling with John and Mary, the mother of Jesus. Neither gnostic nor eastern Church records suggest she was ever married to Jesus; only the gnostic gospel mentions her kissing Jesus, on the cheek, hand, we do not know.
Furthermore, for you to prove your claim, assuming you believe the gnostic gospel enough to believe Mary Magdalene, Jesus's wife, the gospel of John would have to be shown to be the same as the gnostic gospel, both in style and in theology. But certainly this is not the case.
I'm not following what you've said.That is the stupidest rebuttal you have ever made, okinrus.
There is no contradiction with Jesus' resurrection, and therefore it may believed by faith. (Note that all Christians will concede this point as it's evident to the point of doctrine. Nothing new here.)Why don't you also prove that Jesus rose on the same day?
WHAT? What's that I hear about your faith is based on speculation that the NT accounts are true?
okinrus said:I'm not following what you've said.
There is no contradiction with Jesus' resurrection, and therefore it may believed by faith. (Note that all Christians will concede this point as it's evident to the point of doctrine. Nothing new here.)
Now the contradiction is in what M*W is saying(if she bases Mary Magdalene's marriage on a conjectual leap from a gnostic gospel), because the gnostic writing and the gospel of John are radically different. Both couldn't be created by the same author, and therefore one of them has to be a forgery. All I'm interested in is which book M*W believes is the forgery.
You are confusing faith with something else. Yes, believers trust the written witnesses. But they also trust the witness of God within them, and, in so doing, they become witnesses.I wasn't talking about MW's post, I was referring to your post. It may be believed by faith is simply out of the question since you are believing the words of non-witnesses
No, I'm not. My point, in respect to M*W quotation, was that John's gospel and the gospel of Mary Magdalene have radically different style. Of course, there's an assumption either John's gospel or Mary Magdalen's gospel was not edited. But the kind of editing necessary to change the style of the piece is unlikely.firstly, secondly you are speculating that the Synoptics are essentially accurate about the resurrection and claiming it is all on "faith".
I've read the Qur'an, and while some parts are true, other parts are false.If you are taking it on faith then why don't you take the Quran on faith?
No, the implicit assumption is true faith requires God to sustain itself. If my faith is good, then it is sustained by God, as all good things are; otherwise, my faith is trust of someone or something not from God. In any case, like how we trust people, or how we trust a building, we often can determine whether something is sturdy and true by our own judgement, and this judgement is by no way arbitrary.Failure to do so only shows unwarranted arbitrariness which is what I was trying to let you know in the first place.
M*W, John, who traveled through out asia minor, was given the honor of taking care of Jesus' mother. The gospel of Philip does, however, state that Mary Magdalene kissed someone on the mouth.M*W: Yes, I've read that MM was an hermit the Baume cave in France. She traveled with Joseph of Amimathea and possibly Jesus' mother. The Gnostic Gospel of either Philip or Thomas state that "Jesus often kissed her on the mouth."
All instances the term "beloved disciple" appears in John's gospel suggest the reference is John. I suggest that you read both books, side by side. The writing style is really different, and the doctrine and emphasis that Mary Magdalene's gospel uses is different from John's gospel. Furthermore, because Mary Magdalene's gospel is called Mary Magdalene's gospel, you must answer why Mary would need a gospel, having already written John's gospel.M*W: Biblical scholars have now decided that The Gospel of John and Revelations bear familiar writing style as does the Gospel of MM, the Beloved Disciple.
Names and titles don't necessarily mean anything.Consequently, where MM appears in the NT, there also appears "John." I'm still researching MM's connection to John the Baptist, since both their names/titles refer to water,the ocean, the seven seas, MM's home in Bethany, etc.
I've read the Qur'an, and while some parts are true, other parts are false.
okinrus said:You are confusing faith with something else. Yes, believers trust the written witnesses. But they also trust the witness of God within them, and, in so doing, they become witnesses.
No, I'm not. My point, in respect to M*W quotation, was that John's gospel and the gospel of Mary Magdalene have radically different style. Of course, there's an assumption either John's gospel or Mary Magdalen's gospel was not edited. But the kind of editing necessary to change the style of the piece is unlikely.
I've read the Qur'an, and while some parts are true, other parts are false.
No, the implicit assumption is true faith requires God to sustain itself.
If my faith is good, then it is sustained by God, as all good things are; otherwise, my faith is trust of someone or something not from God. In any case, like how we trust people, or how we trust a building, we often can determine whether something is sturdy and true by our own judgement, and this judgement is by no way arbitrary.
C20 said:I believe in God because I know His voice.