There really isn't anything to elaborate on. Everyone is called by THE I AM. Some heed the calling and some don't, some heed and follow, some heed and don't follow, it is a free choice. I simply chose to follow. It isn't any great honor to be either be beckoned or to chose to follow. As I said before all are called. Following doesn't confer any special qualities or make one any more unique or different than anyone else. It simply means that one is ready to do so.

Sodaiho, why would I go to the 4th or 5th Century when I can go to the first century and get the real scoop especially when these Gnostic gospels contradict all over the place the historic Christian writings? Paul warned us about these gnostic writings back in 60 AD when he wrote to the Colossians warning them about these false teachings that were going around.

Philosophers and false teachers who fused religion and Greek philosophy had attempted to modify the gospel message in this church by relying on human wisdom and traditon. God is the God of order; Satan is the god of Chaos and these gnostic gospels do nothing but create chaos and confusion to those who have no idea what's what.

ok.

There is no proof that the gospels were written in the current time of Jesus or even in the years following, neither is there proof that they were directly written by the apostles. Since most of them were common men, the odds are they didn't even know how to write at all. The only way to be sure is to ask THE I AM.

"God is the God of order; Satan is the god of Chaos and these gnostic gospels do nothing but create chaos and confusion to those who have no idea what's what."

Is that why you heed so often to the voice of Paul? Because he interprets for you? Is it because you don't understand the meaning of Jesus's words?

Paul would warn you. That is no surprise. And before you deign not to answer the question, sometimes silence speaks much louder than words.

Nightshades please use the quote feature on this forum. It makes it so much easier to read.

You can obtain it by doing the following:

this bracket [ followed by the word 'quote' and then followed by ] (single quotes not literal). Copy and paste the words from the comment you want to quote and reply to.
finish with [ followed by '/quote' and ].

The other way is to just highlight the select text with the mouse or shift key. Then select the Quote button.

Thanks

The very fact that Paul warned against them should be enough to make one wonder, what he was trying to hide. Could it be that Paul didn't want them read because the reading of them just might reveal the truth? Why didn't he say read them, and then ask God if they are truth or not? What was he so very terribly afraid of? If the words he spoke were the truth he had nothing to fear and no reason to ban or warn against anything at all. The truth is strong enough to stand on it's own. The truth doesn't need anyone to prop it up, or shelter from questioning either.

Thank you adventure. I will do that in the future.

SODAIHO POSTS:




SODAIHO POSTS: [quote]....I was referring to the Gospel of Mary Link.

KFC POSTS:
so you're going to a counterfeit to prove your point? A book filled with errors and contradictions and not accepted by traditional Christianity?[/quote]



Yes, thank you, KFC, regarding the Gnostic writings....you nailed it when you wrote, they are filled with errors and contradictions.

Gnosticism was one of the first heresies the early Christians were confronted with. Having no apostolic authority whatsoever, all of their writings were condemned and rejected wholesale as false, spurious and uncanonical. The Gnostics were essentially pagan sects who took the select language and images of Christianity, like this one cited by SoDaiho, and turned it into something absurd.

During the times of Christ and beyond, there were writings that were acknowledged as "canonical" as "disputed", and those declared spurious or downright false. This book falls into the 3rd category.

Who says they are filled with errors and contradictions and are heretical? Paul of Tarsus? Perhaps you don't consider James, Mary, and Andrew apostles and disciples either, funny Jesus did, but I forget he didn't have Paul of Tarsus's authority and knowledge to guide him in the chosing, he only had God. I think that before you state that there was no apostolic authority you ought to read them. Because that's who the authors of many of them are. But better one should take the word of Paul of Tarsus, he was there with Jesus, and got the truth right from Jesus's own lips, so he knew exactly what Jesus taught, didn't he?

Or maybe it was Constantine who converted to christianity simply because he saw a vision of a crucifix in the sky, and heard a voice that told him if he lead his troops with it, he'd be victorious in battle against his enemies. Now that's a great reason to convert to chritianity that was itself based on the teachings of "love thine enemies, and do good to those that hate you" and "turn the other cheek", isn't it? Maybe it was Jesus himself that told him to go out and slay his enemies. Why do I find all this to be quite implausible, not to mention utterly ridiculous?

It was Constantine who insisted that the gospels be sorted through and combined together into one and only one accepted canon. And by men no less, who like himself lived long after the time of Jesus and the apostles. Wonder how they decided which were acceptable and which weren't. I guess they must have used a psychic. They certainly didn't have anyone with first hand knowledge to tell them. Not even the self proclaimed authority of Paul.

Be brave! Read them. Decide for yourself whether it's the truth or not, better yet ask God. It won't hurt, and you won't go to hell either for doing so. As for being "tempted" you are "tempted" every day of your life, and God doesn't protect you from it either. The truth can take it and stand on it's own merit, even if you can't.

There were no written gospels during the time of Christ. How could anything be written about something that hadn't even taken place yet, whether they were gnostic writings or apostolic? I would find it quite hard and quite impossible to believe that anyone could judge as to whether something was either "canonical" or "disputed" when what they were written about hadn't even taken place yet. There is also no proof that there were any written shortly after his death and resurrection either. The closest date that can be placed on any writings by the apostles themselves is a time frame of fifty to one hundred years after the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Here's another little thing for you to consider as well. Why are there only four gospels? Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John. Jesus had twelve disciples. Why is there also no gospel according to Peter?

NightShades, have you read much about Marcion?

If so I'm curious about your thoughts.

No Adventure, I haven't and to tell the truth I don't know who that is. But I'm always curious, so please enlighten me as to who Marcion is.

actually there is. Mark wrote the gospel of Mark but it was dictated by Peter. The book is written thru the eyes of Peter. Besides that Peter wrote 1 Peter and 2 Peter which is included in the canon of scripture.

Sodaiho posts #421

SoDaiho,
Up until the time of Christ and the development of Christianity, women, overall, were treated as slaves, servants, and playthings of men....definitely treated as inferior to men. Among some peoples, the fathers gave their daughters away in marriage to whomever would pay the most. Husbands had absolute power over their wives, being able to punish her, sell her as a slave, or even put her to death.

In time, this state of degragation ended in the lands that were Christianized. God in fact, in creating the first woman, pronounced these words, "Let us make him a help like unto himself." Gen. 2:18. Christ restored woman's primitive dignity as a companion of man, "like unto himself", like, not inferior. This elevation was brought about in various ways, the first being that Christ was born of a woman, for the New Testament tells us that "God sent His Son, made of a woman."

After that as we have discussed, Christ elevated woman by resoring the unity, indissolubility and sancticty of marriage, making her queen of the home enshrining her natural gifts. There is no more noble vocation for a woman than to be a wife and companion, a mother and a homemaker.


SODAIHO POSTS: #430 [quote]However, women are not equal according to Paul. Women are subservient and should keep quiet.
Colossians 3

18: Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. 19: Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them. 20: Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord. 21: Fathers, do not provoke your children, lest they become discouraged.

Ephesians 5

21: Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ. 22: Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. 23: For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24: As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands.
and
1 Timothy 2

8: I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; 9: also that women should adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly attire 10: but by good deeds, as befits women who profess religion. 11: Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. 12: I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.

Hardly a world where a woman can grown into her own.[/quote]

These passages describe Christian marriages..so, it's not surprising that your summation is wrong...just the opposite of what is true as a matter of fact. Men and women are most free and happy, their marriage growing to its fullest, when they are following what Our Lord God Almighty wants for them in their marriage vocation. These passages are God's guidelines...The wise follow God's directives.

These passages do not mean that woman are subserviant to their husbands. Women are to be subject to their husbands only becasue of the need of authority and order in the family which calls for unity of command. Though subject to him, the wife is always his companion, not his servant or doormat. The next verse is "Let everyone of you in particular love his wife as himself." The power of the husband has well defined limits: he's the head of his wife, but for her welfare....He couldn't have a loftier Examplar than Christ who delived Himself up for His beloved Spouse, the Church.

This subjection doesn't deny or take away the liberty which fully belongs to the woman as a human person, a wife, a mother and a companion. Why? becasue it doesn't bid her to obey her husband's every request if not in harmony with reason or the dignity due her.

The body is the family, and the husband the head of the family, the wife the heart...if the heart is separated from the head, then it is to the detriment of the family and eventually will be its ruin.

Obviously, the world today under secular humanism today doesn't see marraige/woman/man relationships in the Christian sense. For the most part, in conversation, romances, on stage, movies, women, their virtue and honor, are not held in high regard, respected or defended.

So, here we see that, except in the light of Christianity, women are destined to lose her noble preprogatives, to abase herself, and forced to serve the less noble instincts of man.

So why then did it take the Christian world so many centuries to allow women to own property, whereas Jewish and Islamic jurisdictions introduced that degree of equality before the law a long time ago?

I find it hypocritical that someone who refuses even to read the Talmud or other Jewish legal texts makes statements comparing Jewish and Christian law attitudes towards women. How do you know Judaism did not develop that same or a better legal framework for women in the same timeframe as Christianity? You refuse to read the sources. You quote the Christian Bible to make your point, but would you even read (other) Jewish texts to find out what they say about women?

Women did have rights under Jewish law, well before Jesus (or the other Messiah-wannabes) spoke up. Israel has had more female prophets than the Catholic Church had female popes.

Who even believes that the Messiah would necessarily be a _man_? Jews don't.

One has only to look at the current state of females in Muslim countries to know that they have nowhere near the equality that those in Christian nations do Leauki.

What female prophets are you referring to?

According to the text of scripture although women are to be considered equal in many areas especially in the spiritual they are not completely equal in the fact that God has mandated that men should be the head of families and worship. Also, men are not equal with women in the fact that they cannot bear children. God had diff roles for men and women and when they operate in the context that God had in mind for them, blessings happen.



Well I'm not sure why that would be. Moses and the prophets did.

Who says so Mark? Simply because it was said that it was dictated by Peter doesn't make it so, nor does it dismiss the fact that there were still 12 apostles, and there are (and I am including Peter just for you), still 7 missing. The gnostic texts are written by some of those same apostles. They have just as much authority as Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, and far more than Paul of Tarsus. So why were they omitted do you think? And why do you think that they had to be hidden amongst the gnostic gospels? Could it possibly be that they threatened the supposed authority of Paul of Tarsus?

Peter 1 and Peter II are not gospels, and it still doesn't explain his missing gospel.



No, it didn't. It didn't end in fact until the womans suffragette movement, and that occurred in America, not a christian land, although christians did live here. Pope Pius himself used his daughter Lucrecia as a pawn and means to advance the cause of the church and consolidate his power. Christianity did little to nothing to advance the cause of womens equality anywhere. Democracy did that, and christianity can't take the credit.



In fact the text says that the "Lord God" made woman from a rib taken from Adam as a help mate, not God. God created man and woman in his own image, God did not take a rib from man to create her either. God and the Lord God are not the same although the Lord God is of God.



All men are born of and made of woman,(genetics should tell one that), the birth of Jesus was nothing at all unique in that aspect. Careful you are now treading on dangerous ground in saying "God sent his son". That statement implies that Jesus was not "God" incarnate.



Those the words of Paul of Tarsus, not Jesus. And there is a more "noble vocation" for woman other than to be a wife, companion, a mother and a homemaker, and that is to be a follower of the truth and THE I AM.



Jesus said "No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will stand by the one, and despise the other. You can not serve God and mammon."



These are not the words of Jesus, but those of a jealous man. Jesus permitted women to follow him, and he first appeared to them, not to the men. But you are correct in your statement that they are for the need of authority, Pauls own authority. If the women disciples were forbidden to speak and teach they would have shown Paul for the viper that he was.



It is humanism that has given women their high regard and respect. Paul sought to take that away by forbidding her to speak, and making her a servant instead of a servor. He feared women, he knew that due to her very lack of self importance that she would learn of the truth far quicker than any man. No humanists don't see marriage/woman/man relationships in the christian sense. They see them as their equals, and as their equals they "love them as they love themselves". Those were the words of Jesus, remember?

Muslim states do not reflect not all muslim men, just as christian states do not reflect all christian men. You take what you hear KFC and believe that it is the truth without finding out for yourself whether it's valid or not. I know muslim men and I know christian men, and some of the muslim men treat their wives with far more respect and love and give them far more equality then the christian ones do.

SoDaiho posts:


KFC POSTS:


This verse from Galatians 3:28 and v. 29 summarizes the teaching that we baptized Christians are Abraham's offspring and heirs to the promise. So what St.Paul is saying is that women are substantially equal to men especially regarding the means to salvation.

In the order of ur spiritual nature, it may be said that all men and women are radically equal in that we are all born in the image and likness of God Genesis 1:26-27. From this pov, there is no difference between man and woman. Tieing Genesis with the order of grace which the Redemption inaugurated, this essential original equality was restored by Christ, who became man and died on the Cross to save all mankind. In the mystery of the Redemption, man becomes newly expressed, in a way, newly created. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ." For the person who wishes to understand himself thoroughly and not just in accordance with immediate partial, superficial and illusory standards and measures of his being, with his uncertainity, weakness, and sinfulness, draw near to Christ; enter into Him, so to speak, with his own self, in order to find himself.

From this radical equality of all is derived that universal fraternity which should govern human relations.. our Lord came to bring peace, good news, and life to all....not only to the rich, nor to the poor, nor to the wise or simple-minded, but to everyone. We are all brothers and sisters at least cousins, children of the same Father, God. So there is only one race, the race of the children of God. There's only one language, which speaks to the heart and to the mind without the noise of words making us know God and love Him and one another.

Hi All,

We were at our refuge over the last three days and found ourselves flooded in.  Terrible storms and tons of rain prevented us from leaving. Finally, this morning, a Sheriff in a very big truck was able to get us out.  I hope to catch up in the morning. 

Be well.

SODAIHO POSTS:

AD posts:

KFC POSTS: #464



AD,

We are living the millennium reign right now...it's called the Church age or time of Church blessing. There is no future 1,000 year earthly kingdom distinct from the present Church age.

KFC,

You must be referring to Apoc. 20:1-6?

"Then I saw and angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years and threw him into the pit and shut it and sealed it over him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years were ended. After that he must be loosed for a little while. Then I saw thrones and seated on them were those to whom judgment was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony to Jesus and for the word of God, and who had not worshipped the beast or its image and had not received its image on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he who shares in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and they shall reign with Him a thousand years.

The "thousand years" here is symbolic language meaning a long period of time, a spiritual reality. The symbolism is the same thing that St.John borrowed from Ezekiel in the "great supper of God". 19:17. This context shouldn't be ignored.

ANd certainly one thousand is used throughout Scripture to imply a large but symbolic amount. Psalm 50 has it that God owns "the cattle on a thousand hills". (this means God owns all the cattle on all the hills which number more than a thousand.) ANother is, found in Ezekiel 47:3-6, one thousand cubits is used symbolically four times as the depth of water flowing from below the threshold of the Temple. Deut. 7:9, Psalm 84:10, 90:4; 91:7, 105:8, are a few more that use the symbolic one thousand number. The Davidic kingdom was said to last one thousand years, signifying a number of years too large to warrant counting.

LEAUKI POSTS:

Yes, you are, but only one of us has the truth.


Both Hebraic and modern day Judaism, Christianity and Islam (Muhammadism) believe there is one God, yet, they are 3 distinct religions.

I've already expressed my thoughts as what only religion possesses the truth. It's Christianity, and specifically Catholicism. I say this because Rabbinic Judaism, Islam and all the various Protestant sects are man-made containing truth mixed with error.

There is only one truth in religion. Truth is neither yours nor mine...it's independent of either of us. We hold things becasue they are true. They are not true because we happen to believe them. Truth is in possession. It's also consistent.

While truth can be viewed from different angles, truth cannot be different from itself. We cannot say that people who believe contradictory things are viewing the same truths though.

Sarah, Miriam, Devorah, Hannah (mother of the prophet Samuel), Abigail (a wife of King David), Huldah (from the time of Jeremiah), and Esther.

(Got the list from Wikipedia.)

In Jewish theology Sarah is understood as being a more capable prophet than Abraham.




In Judaism men have more religious duties than women. But they do not have more rights.




I agree.




No, they didn't. The messiah is referred to as "he" simply because Hebrew has only two genders and the masculine gender is used whenever the word is masculine or undetermined.

But Judaism does not believe that the messiah is necessarily male (or a person, for that matter).