Gospel of Mary

[Burkladies]

Gospel of Mary

22) The Savior said, All nature, all formations, all creatures exist
in and with one another, and they will be resolved again into their
own roots.
23) For the nature of matter is resolved into the roots of its own
nature alone.
24) He who has ears to hear, let him hear.
25) Peter said to him, Since you have explained everything to us, tell
us this also: What is the sin of the world?
26) The Savior said There is no sin, but it is you who make sin when
you do the things that are like the nature of adultery, which is
called sin.
27) That is why the Good came into your midst, to the essence of every
nature in order to restore it to its root.
28) Then He continued and said, That is why you become sick and die,
for you are deprived of the one who can heal you.
29) He who has a mind to understand, let him understand.
30) Matter gave birth to a passion that has no equal, which proceeded
from something contrary to nature. Then there arises a disturbance in
its whole body.
31) That is why I said to you, Be of good courage, and if you are
discouraged be encouraged in the presence of the different forms of
nature.
32) He who has ears to hear, let him hear.
http://www.gnosis.org/library/marygosp.htm

Blessings

[B.G. Kent]

The woman was so full of wisdom and love and yet was called a prostitute
by the church for sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo long before they
took it back. Sometimes I wonder how much damage the "Church" (and by that
I mean the Pope..the politics...etc. ) has done to Christianity as a
whole.

Bren

[Denis Giron]

Post by B.G. Kent
The woman was so full of wisdom and love and yet was called
a prostitute by the church for sooooooooooooooooooooooooo
long before they took it back. Sometimes I wonder how much
damage the "Church" (and by that I mean the Pope..the politics
etc. ) has done to Christianity as a whole.

I hope Matthew Johnson gets involved in this thread. While I may be
mistaken, it is my understanding that Church traditions stating that
Mary Magdalene was a prostitute long predated the sad schism between
East and West. If that is correct, then in what sense can one blame
this on the Pope? And, worse, why should any Christian reject Church
tradition in favor of the DaVinci Code or your gut feeling?

Post by B.G. Kent
Prove that it is a "false gospel" instead of just aping the church's
(Rome) edicts.

Again, the closing of the NT canon happened well before the schism
between East and West, therefore it was not merely Rome or the Pope
which decided this issue. But if one wants to get into which texts are
part of the canon and which are not, one needs to ask who has the
authority to decide such? Who had the authority to bind together the
disparate parts of the canon? I think it is the Church set up by Jesus
Christ.

---

[On the identification of Mary with the sinner, Wikipedia cites a
sermon by Hippolytus in the 3rd Cent and a sermon by Gregory I in 591.

While Wikipedia tells us that Eastern tradition distingishes he
from the sinner, and the OCA web site description of her doesn't
mention the identification, it does say the tradition says she
was a "sinner" before meeting Jesus.
http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?FSID=102070
Goarch, http://goarch.org/en/chapel/saints.asp?contentid=136
says that the identification of her with the sinner is not
included in Tradition.

The Catholic Encyclopedia agrees that the Greek Fathers
distinguished Mary Magdalen from the others
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09761a.htm, but argues that
the identification is probable.

In the Eastern Church, Mary is often referred to as
Equal to the Apostles.
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Mary_Magdalene

While the sermons by Hippolytus and Gregory are before the official
split between East and West, there were differences in the Tradition
going back that early.

Gregory didn't invent the identification, but apparently his
sermon had significant influence in spreading it.
http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0506.asp

--clh]

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Denis Giron

Post by B.G. Kent
The woman was so full of wisdom and love and yet was called
a prostitute by the church for sooooooooooooooooooooooooo
long before they took it back. Sometimes I wonder how much
damage the "Church" (and by that I mean the Pope..the politics
etc. ) has done to Christianity as a whole.

I hope Matthew Johnson gets involved in this thread.

Speak his name and the _what_ appears?;)

Post by Denis Giron
While I may be
mistaken, it is my understanding that Church traditions stating that
Mary Magdalene was a prostitute long predated the sad schism between
East and West.

I don't know where the belief came from, but it didn't come from us. In fact, I
notice in the Moderator's parenthetical comments that both his early sources
were from the Roman Church. But only one was a Pope.

Post by Denis Giron
If that is correct, then in what sense can one blame
this on the Pope?

Right. It was irrational of Brenda to blame this on the Pope.

Post by Denis Giron
And, worse, why should any Christian reject Church
tradition in favor of the DaVinci Code or your gut feeling?

Stupidity or worse is the only reason.

Post by Denis Giron

Post by B.G. Kent
Prove that it is a "false gospel" instead of just aping the church's
(Rome) edicts.

Again, the closing of the NT canon happened well before the schism
between East and West,

Almost. The Armenian Church accepts a III Corinthians, and the Ethiopian Church
has an Apocalyptic Book in the NT other than Revelation (I can't remember the
name).

Post by Denis Giron
therefore it was not merely Rome or the Pope
which decided this issue.

This is certainly true. It was rather a consensus that grew across the entire
Mediterraneaum world, and even beyond it, including Greek, Roman, African and
even Georgian and Indian Churches.

Post by Denis Giron
But if one wants to get into which texts are
part of the canon and which are not, one needs to ask who has the
authority to decide such? Who had the authority to bind together the
disparate parts of the canon? I think it is the Church set up by Jesus
Christ.

It always amazes me how few people notice this. Of course it had to be done, and
only the Church could do it.

[snip]

[B.G. Kent]

Post by Denis Giron

Post by B.G. Kent
The woman was so full of wisdom and love and yet was called
a prostitute by the church for sooooooooooooooooooooooooo
long before they took it back. Sometimes I wonder how much
damage the "Church" (and by that I mean the Pope..the politics
etc. ) has done to Christianity as a whole.

I hope Matthew Johnson gets involved in this thread. While I may be
mistaken, it is my understanding that Church traditions stating that

B - Heh..well he may but since I delete his posts unread...I won't be
seeing them. I like to have conversations with fair and humble
people.

Post by Denis Giron
Mary Magdalene was a prostitute long predated the sad schism between
East and West.

B - Where is the proof? if so..why is she venerated so much in southern
France?



If that is correct, then in what sense can one blame

Post by Denis Giron
this on the Pope? And, worse, why should any Christian reject Church
tradition in favor of the DaVinci Code or your gut feeling?

B - The Catholic Church..even though they have apologized for their past
and have recanted on Mary Magdelene as a prostitute ....still have a
problem with full disclosure. They need to be open to all of their
secrets...their harm and their past mistakes.

Post by Denis Giron

Post by B.G. Kent
Prove that it is a "false gospel" instead of just aping the church's
(Rome) edicts.

Again, the closing of the NT canon happened well before the schism
between East and West, therefore it was not merely Rome or the Pope
which decided this issue. But if one wants to get into which texts are
part of the canon and which are not, one needs to ask who has the
authority to decide such? Who had the authority to bind together the
disparate parts of the canon? I think it is the Church set up by Jesus
Christ.

B - Prove that the group that collated the Bible were set up by Jesus..a
man who died 300 years earlier?


Bren

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Denis Giron

Post by B.G. Kent
The woman was so full of wisdom and love and yet was called
a prostitute by the church for sooooooooooooooooooooooooo
long before they took it back. Sometimes I wonder how much
damage the "Church" (and by that I mean the Pope..the politics
etc. ) has done to Christianity as a whole.

I hope Matthew Johnson gets involved in this thread. While I may be
mistaken, it is my understanding that Church traditions stating that
Mary Magdalene was a prostitute long predated the sad schism between
East and West. If that is correct, then in what sense can one blame
this on the Pope? And, worse, why should any Christian reject Church
tradition in favor of the DaVinci Code or your gut feeling?

In the Orthodox Church St Mary Magalene has long been regarded as "Equal to
the Apostles".

I understand that there were some medieval French about her being a prostitute
and going to France that were taken up and pushed by the French tourist
industry to drum up business.

The same thing is happening now in Romania over Dracula. The Romanians have
only recently discovered Dracula, and I believe Bram Stoker's book has now
been translated into Romanian, and so they are milking the story for all it is
worth (and it's worth quite a lot in tourist Euros and dollars).

Post by Denis Giron
While Wikipedia tells us that Eastern tradition distingishes he
from the sinner, and the OCA web site description of her doesn't
mention the identification, it does say the tradition says she
was a "sinner" before meeting Jesus.
http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?FSID=102070
Goarch, http://goarch.org/en/chapel/saints.asp?contentid=136
says that the identification of her with the sinner is not
included in Tradition.

As were *all* the apostles.

[Denis Giron]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Denis Giron
I hope Matthew Johnson gets involved in this thread.

Speak his name and the _what_ appears?;)

I mentioned you because I was about to make a claim about Orthodoxy
(which apparently turned out to be false), and since I was very unsure
about the claim I was about to make, I wanted you to weigh in (i.e.
because you are one of the more knowledgeable posters to the newsgroup
with regard to Orthodoxy). I appreciate your participation.

Post by Matthew Johnson
Almost. The Armenian Church accepts a III Corinthians, and the
Ethiopian Church has an Apocalyptic Book in the NT other than
Revelation (I can't remember the name).

Interesting. And why is this? I though the so-called Oriental Orthodox
churches post-dated the council(s) which decided the NT canon...

As for the Ethiopian Church, I have read their canon includes
Jubilees. Is that part of their NT or their OT?

Post by Matthew Johnson
It always amazes me how few people notice this. Of course it
had to be done, and only the Church could do it.

For me, it clicked a while ago that the sort of strict version of the
"bible only" held by some Protestants is logically inconsistent. Their
rule seems to be that important doctrines should only be determined by
the Bible, but, being that their sole source of authoritative guidance
is the Bible itself, one of the most important doctrines of all is
going to be with regard to the canon (i.e. what are the books of the
Bible?). Since the Bible itself does not list the canon, they have to
go outside the Bible to justify one of their core doctrines. Pondering
that made the issue of Church authority click for me. From a Christian
stand point, one can only conclude that Jesus did not just hand people
the Bible, rather he established a Church!

[Denis Giron]

Post by B.G. Kent
Heh..well he may but since I delete his posts unread...

That is a shame. No doubt, sometimes Matthew offers criticisms in a
tone that some find offensive, but that does not change the fact that
the man is a very valuable contributor to this newsgroup, especially
when it comes to issues relevant to Orthodoxy.

Post by B.G. Kent
Where is the proof? if so..why is she venerated so much in southern
France?

My claim that the identification of Mary Magdalene with a prostitute
was also part of Orthodoxy was apparently false (thanks to Mr. Johnson
and Mr. Hedrick for the correction). That being said, as a general
rule, I would have seen no contradiction in revering (or even
venerating) a saint who once committed gross sins before their
conversion.

Post by B.G. Kent
Prove that the group that collated the Bible were set up by Jesus..a
man who died 300 years earlier?

Well, this will be difficult to prove to you, as you seem to be
outside the scope of traditional Christian understanding of
Christianity (whether Orthodox or Roman Catholic). I will simply ask
you this: do you believe there is such a thing as holy scripture? If
so, how do you determine what are the authentic books of the canon and
what are not?

Personally, I think that, in an issue as serious as determining the
canon of the Bible, Christians should not lean on their own
understanding (Proverbs 3:5), rather they should hold to the
traditions of the Church (2 Thessalonians 2:15), because the Church is
the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Timothy 3:15). Admittedly, this
begs the question of what is the Church.

Whatever the case, I look forward to reading your thoughts on how you
determine the canon of scripture (or if you believe there is such a
thing).

[A Brown]

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by Denis Giron
I hope Matthew Johnson gets involved in this thread. While I may be
mistaken, it is my understanding that Church traditions stating that

B - Heh..well he may but since I delete his posts unread...I won't be
seeing them. I like to have conversations with fair and humble
people.

Well that certainly doesn't sound like Matt!

He likes to have discussions where he is the only one who gets to speak.

Post by B.G. Kent
B - Prove that the group that collated the Bible were set up by Jesus..a
man who died 300 years earlier?

Most people don't realize this....that there waas years and years were there
WAS a church....but there was NO Bible.

Until people put it together many years after Jesus....and many years after
the last Apostle died.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by Denis Giron

Post by B.G. Kent
The woman was so full of wisdom and love and yet was called
a prostitute by the church for sooooooooooooooooooooooooo
long before they took it back. Sometimes I wonder how much
damage the "Church" (and by that I mean the Pope..the politics
etc. ) has done to Christianity as a whole.

I hope Matthew Johnson gets involved in this thread. While I may be
mistaken, it is my understanding that Church traditions stating that

B - Heh..well he may but since I delete his posts unread...I won't be
seeing them. I like to have conversations with fair and humble
people.

Ah, well they do say opposites attract;)

[snip]

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Denis Giron

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Denis Giron
I hope Matthew Johnson gets involved in this thread.

Speak his name and the _what_ appears?;)

I mentioned you because I was about to make a claim about Orthodoxy
(which apparently turned out to be false), and since I was very unsure
about the claim I was about to make, I wanted you to weigh in (i.e.
because you are one of the more knowledgeable posters to the newsgroup
with regard to Orthodoxy). I appreciate your participation.

And you did the right thing. There are a few other posters who should follow
your lead in accepting correction;)

Post by Denis Giron

Post by Matthew Johnson
Almost. The Armenian Church accepts a III Corinthians, and the
Ethiopian Church has an Apocalyptic Book in the NT other than
Revelation (I can't remember the name).

Interesting. And why is this?

Good question.

Post by Denis Giron
I though the so-called Oriental Orthodox
churches post-dated the council(s) which decided the NT canon...

They do. Yet I have never heard anyone raise a fuss over their additional books.
I do hear people raise a fuss over their Monophysitism. But to be fair to them,
I should point out that especially the Armenians deny that they are
'Monophysite'. The Copts are not fond of the label, either.

Post by Denis Giron
As for the Ethiopian Church, I have read their canon includes
Jubilees. Is that part of their NT or their OT?

OT.

Post by Denis Giron

Post by Matthew Johnson
It always amazes me how few people notice this. Of course it
had to be done, and only the Church could do it.

For me, it clicked a while ago that the sort of strict version of the
"bible only" held by some Protestants is logically inconsistent.

I noticed this by about 1981.

Post by Denis Giron
Their
rule seems to be that important doctrines should only be determined by
the Bible, but, being that their sole source of authoritative guidance
is the Bible itself, one of the most important doctrines of all is
going to be with regard to the canon (i.e. what are the books of the
Bible?). Since the Bible itself does not list the canon, they have to
go outside the Bible to justify one of their core doctrines.

Absolutely. And what is even more scary is _what_ they turn to "ouside the
Bible". I have _often_ heard Protestants argue for the infallibility of the
Bible using _exactly_ the same argument the Mormons use for accepting the Book
of Mormon!

Post by Denis Giron
Pondering
that made the issue of Church authority click for me. From a Christian
stand point, one can only conclude that Jesus did not just hand people
the Bible, rather he established a Church!

And this is one point on which Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox can heartily
agree. Now if only we could agree on _which_ is that Church;)

[B.G. Kent]

Post by Denis Giron

Post by B.G. Kent
Heh..well he may but since I delete his posts unread...

That is a shame. No doubt, sometimes Matthew offers criticisms in a
tone that some find offensive, but that does not change the fact that
the man is a very valuable contributor to this newsgroup, especially
when it comes to issues relevant to Orthodoxy.

B - if he could allow others to have opinions that are different from his
without him resorting to name calling...if he could state that it is his
opinion only and he is not talking for all Christians nor that he is the
only example of what a Christian can be...I would gladly read his
stuff..but I find him far too bigoted and insulting and un-Christianlike
that I have decided to follow a bible passage that stated to not cast
pearls before swine....to kick off the dust of ones sandals and carry on.

Post by Denis Giron

Post by B.G. Kent
Where is the proof? if so..why is she venerated so much in southern
France?

My claim that the identification of Mary Magdalene with a prostitute
was also part of Orthodoxy was apparently false (thanks to Mr. Johnson
and Mr. Hedrick for the correction). That being said, as a general
rule, I would have seen no contradiction in revering (or even
venerating) a saint who once committed gross sins before their
conversion.

B - understood.

Post by Denis Giron

Post by B.G. Kent
Prove that the group that collated the Bible were set up by Jesus..a
man who died 300 years earlier?

Well, this will be difficult to prove to you, as you seem to be
outside the scope of traditional Christian understanding of
Christianity (whether Orthodox or Roman Catholic). I will simply ask
you this: do you believe there is such a thing as holy scripture? If
so, how do you determine what are the authentic books of the canon and
what are not?

B - Yes I do believe in holy scripture. I determine this by going within
(meditation) and talking to God the source. Next question will no doubt
be..how do you know it is God and not just your own conscience? My answer
would be..that it is hard to explain how to a person until they are there
themselves. Not the best answer but the best I can do. Point is..I am
talking about "myself" my own opinion. I don't talk for every
Christian..and I would never deem to. I usually am just defending myself
against those that deem to speak for God for everyone. My experience of
God is my experience. Telling everyone that it is the only way would be
wrong...and I don't like it when others do that either.

Post by Denis Giron
Personally, I think that, in an issue as serious as determining the
canon of the Bible, Christians should not lean on their own
understanding (Proverbs 3:5), rather they should hold to the
traditions of the Church (2 Thessalonians 2:15), because the Church is
the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Timothy 3:15). Admittedly, this
begs the question of what is the Church.

B - In the old days...lay people were not allowed to read the gospels. The
Gospels were seen as up to the clergy to disseminate and explain. I don't
believe that the clergy are any better suited to explain God than anyone
else. We are all equal under God and it is a very personal experience we
all have. To just trust the church is to put something very special and
personal in the hands of someone else and this is folly as far as I am
concerned. I believe in constantly questioning all kinds of authority.
There is no middle man between myself and God nor anyone else and God.

Post by Denis Giron
Whatever the case, I look forward to reading your thoughts on how you
determine the canon of scripture (or if you believe there is such a
thing).

B - I believe that there has always been inner and outer traditions in all
kinds of religions. I believe that this was true in old Christianity but
that to quell the fighting between these two groups Constantine made all
groups be merged into one and took the outer version (the kindergarten
version for example) as the one for all. The inner groups(graduates) were
forced
underground and there they stood for many years. Now the truth is coming
out. This is MY opinion..has nothing to do with the Da Vinci Code (a good
piece of fiction but resting on SOME truth)or such but my own
understanding. My own studies of ancient jewish life,traditions,word
meanings, culture, taking into consider that which the church considered
heresy and being free to read up as well as the mainstream. I have no one
forcing me through after-death threats (hell and the devil) as I don't
believe in the devil and ceased belief in this entity when I reached the
age of 12 and no peer pressure or going with the crowd fear etc. Infact
what draws me to understand God and life is love..not fear. Perfect love
does cast out all fear.

In my opinion.

Bren
ps. thankyou for treating me kindly.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by A Brown

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by Denis Giron
I hope Matthew Johnson gets involved in this thread. While I may be
mistaken, it is my understanding that Church traditions stating that

B - Heh..well he may but since I delete his posts unread...I won't be
seeing them. I like to have conversations with fair and humble
people.

Well that certainly doesn't sound like Matt!
He likes to have discussions where he is the only one who gets to speak.

Post by B.G. Kent
B - Prove that the group that collated the Bible were set up by Jesus..a
man who died 300 years earlier?

Most people don't realize this....

And just like so many of your other assertions starting out like this...

Post by A Brown
that there waas years and years were there
WAS a church....but there was NO Bible.

It isn't even true. Rather, the 'Bible' the Church used was the OLD TESTAMENT.
Paul's writings and the Gospels, while considered important, were not considered
part of "the Bible".

Post by A Brown
Until people put it together many years after Jesus....and many years after
the last Apostle died.

This is more accurate. Yes, it was years after the last Apostle died that the
notion of a collection of books to be known as "the New Testament" emerged, but
it wasn't that many years. What _did_ take many years was the agreement on what
books would go _in_ to the New Testament.

Yet there was early agreement that the Four Canonical Gospels, and many of the
Epistles of Paul, should be in it. Only Marcion disagreed on this. What dragged
things out was a few epistles like Hebrews, which was not accepted in large
parts of the Mediterraneaan world until rather late.

Also, it took a while for oddballs like the Gospel fo Peter to be recognized for
the dross that they were. But after a lot of damage done to dioceses where it
was allowed to be read, the Church as a whole finally decided to reject it.

This is a very brief sketch of the history of the canon. The website
http://www.ntcanon.org/ has much more.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Denis Giron

Post by B.G. Kent
Heh..well he may but since I delete his posts unread...

That is a shame. No doubt, sometimes Matthew offers criticisms in a
tone that some find offensive, but that does not change the fact that
the man is a very valuable contributor to this newsgroup, especially
when it comes to issues relevant to Orthodoxy.

This note of appreciation is itself much appreciated. Thank you.

Post by Denis Giron

Post by B.G. Kent
Where is the proof? if so..why is she venerated so much in southern
France?

My claim that the identification of Mary Magdalene with a prostitute
was also part of Orthodoxy was apparently false (thanks to Mr. Johnson
and Mr. Hedrick for the correction). That being said, as a general
rule, I would have seen no contradiction in revering (or even
venerating) a saint who once committed gross sins before their
conversion.

This is a very important point. It has always amazed me that people make such a
big deal over what she was before she became a disciple. It is none of our
_business_ what her sins/failins were before repentance. What _is_ our business
is what a great saint she became after.

[snip]

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by Denis Giron

Post by B.G. Kent
Heh..well he may but since I delete his posts unread...

That is a shame. No doubt, sometimes Matthew offers criticisms in a
tone that some find offensive, but that does not change the fact that
the man is a very valuable contributor to this newsgroup, especially
when it comes to issues relevant to Orthodoxy.

B - if he could allow others to have opinions that are different from his
without him resorting to name calling...

Ah, but it is only your opinion that I do this;) The real truth is that no, that
is not what I am doing.

The rest of your rant is just as deluded, so I snip.

[snip]

[Burkladies]

Post by B.G. Kent
The woman was so full of wisdom and love and yet was called a prostitute
by the church for sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo long before they
took it back. Sometimes I wonder how much damage the "Church" (and by that
I mean the Pope..the politics...etc. ) has done to Christianity as a
whole.
Bren

Yep, the inquisition is proof of the Church's greed. They found the
need to curse Mary the apostle as a prostitute, because of her wisdom
and love.

[t***@acenet.net.au]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Denis Giron

Post by B.G. Kent
Heh..well he may but since I delete his posts unread...

That is a shame. No doubt, sometimes Matthew offers criticisms in a
tone that some find offensive, but that does not change the fact that
the man is a very valuable contributor to this newsgroup, especially
when it comes to issues relevant to Orthodoxy.

This note of appreciation is itself much appreciated. Thank you.

Post by Denis Giron

Post by B.G. Kent
Where is the proof? if so..why is she venerated so much in southern
France?

My claim that the identification of Mary Magdalene with a prostitute
was also part of Orthodoxy was apparently false (thanks to Mr. Johnson
and Mr. Hedrick for the correction). That being said, as a general
rule, I would have seen no contradiction in revering (or even
venerating) a saint who once committed gross sins before their
conversion.

This is a very important point. It has always amazed me that people make such a
big deal over what she was before she became a disciple. It is none of our
_business_ what her sins/failins were before repentance. What _is_ our business
is what a great saint she became after.
[snip]
--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)

The Catholic position on the formation of the Scriptures can be found
in the following web site.


http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm


For my own part, I would be dubious about any "Gospel" outside our
tradition. The Protestants inherited their Bible from the Catholic
Church and in fact threw out some books (the Deutero-Canonical
books). If Luther had had his way he'd have thrown out even more
including James, simply because he didn't like the fact James called
for practical service to others to back up one's faith.

As for a shortage of Bibles and the fact lay people didn't have them,
it wasn't until the advent of the printing press, not long before
Luther, that Bibles were affordable for most people. Even in Luther's
time a Bible would still have been an expensive undertaking. A lot of
them couldn't read and write and the widespread literacy we have today
is largely due to the fact that machinery has freed enough of us from
manual labour that we have the time and resources to educate the great
mass of people.

And of the thousands of Protestant denominations, some of whom
disagree quite strongly with each other as well as with Rome, which
one am I supposed to accept is divinely guided. Even Christ said that
if he spoke from his own authority, it would mean nothing. I've had
enough personal experience of "spiritual" leadings to be very
sceptical that any particular leading is from the Holy Spirit.

I'll stick to established tradition, and for my part that means taking
at face value the promise of Christ to Peter, recorded in the
Scriptures themselves, that He would found his Church on Peter. This
statement was made to Peter, and the church was in existence for
several hundred years before the "Bible" existed as such. Mind you
parts of all the books of the New Testament can be traced back to the
Church fathers before the end of the first century. So when some
johnny-come-lately turns up and pretends to be scriptural, I defer to
the apostolic succession for a decision.

Which, by the way, the Protestants also do, although they don't
realise it. Where do Protestants think they got the Bible from?

[Matthew Johnson]

In article <EAwVi.6573$R%***@trnddc05>, ***@acenet.net.au says...
[snip]

Post by t***@acenet.net.au
I'll stick to established tradition, and for my part that means taking
at face value the promise of Christ to Peter, recorded in the
Scriptures themselves, that He would found his Church on Peter.

But "established tradition" does not even _agree_ on what that "face value" is.
So, for example, few in the East will deny that the "face value" is that the
Church will be built upon _Peter_. But _none_ believe that has _any_
implications of a similar role for Peter's alleged successor, the Roman Pope.
Yet Rome has a habit of insisting that this too, is implied by the "face value".

[snip]

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Burkladies

Post by B.G. Kent
The woman was so full of wisdom and love and yet was called a prostitute
by the church for sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo long before they
took it back. Sometimes I wonder how much damage the "Church" (and by that
I mean the Pope..the politics...etc. ) has done to Christianity as a
whole.
Bren

Yep, the inquisition is proof of the Church's greed. They found the
need to curse Mary the apostle as a prostitute, because of her wisdom
and love.

Are you going for a record of the most numerous and outrageous slanders in one
short sentence? No, the Inquisition is not, and never has been, a "proof of the
Church's greed". And no, Saint Mary Magdalene was _not_ "cursed as a
prostitute". Rather, she has always been praised as a great saint.

Except, of course, by those who slander her by naming a false gospel after her.
They are NOT praising her as a great saint, but cursing her vainly.

[Burkladies]

Post by t***@acenet.net.au
And of the thousands of Protestant denominations, some of whom
disagree quite strongly with each other as well as with Rome, which
one am I supposed to accept is divinely guided. Even Christ said that
if he spoke from his own authority, it would mean nothing. I've had
enough personal experience of "spiritual" leadings to be very
sceptical that any particular leading is from the Holy Spirit.

I think that is fine. Whatever works 4 u. Everyone has their own way
to Christ no matter the denomination.

Post by t***@acenet.net.au
I'll stick to established tradition, and for my part that means taking
at face value the promise of Christ to Peter, recorded in the
Scriptures themselves, that He would found his Church on Peter. This
statement was made to Peter, and the church was in existence for
several hundred years before the "Bible" existed as such. Mind you
parts of all the books of the New Testament can be traced back to the
Church fathers before the end of the first century. So when some
johnny-come-lately turns up and pretends to be scriptural, I defer to
the apostolic succession for a decision.

Nothing wrong with established tradition so long as you steer clear of
brain washing.
The apostlic succession is an important part of worship. Gnosticsm is
called now follows all you describe. Which is why we all still exist
following Christ and Mary an apostle is another mouth piece.

Post by t***@acenet.net.au
Which, by the way, the Protestants also do, although they don't
realise it. Where do Protestants think they got the Bible from?

The protestant churches I have attended realize and teach
accordingly. Why do you think Alpha is taught at protestant
parishes? I am a graduate of Alpha a few years back shortly after
the free classes began at my parish.
I was baptized Catholic and forced to attend religious education
"Catacism" classes on Saturday morning with a boring teacher for 2
hours. I learned early the corruption which flows in the Catholic
church as lovely as the faith may be.
Unfortunetly when the bible was compiled, many scriptures were put
aside and some were not found yet. Either buried or in safer hands
out of country. That is what scriptures the Vatican did not steal and
harbor in his wealthy collection.

Blessings

[A Brown]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Burkladies
Yep, the inquisition is proof of the Church's greed. They found the
need to curse Mary the apostle as a prostitute, because of her wisdom
and love.

Are you going for a record of the most numerous and outrageous slanders in
one
short sentence?

Again with the 'slander' claim.

It's not slander when someone disagrees with your position.

Second, there are lots of controversial theories about Mary Magdelane, her
life and her role in the Church.

Her history has evolved over the years.

---

[Perhaps. But the connection with the Inquisition seems weak. The
interpretation of Mary Magdelene as the sinful woman was well established
before the Inquisition. --clh]

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Burkladies
Yep, the inquisition is proof of the Church's greed. They found the
need to curse Mary the apostle as a prostitute, because of her wisdom
and love.

Are you going for a record of the most numerous and outrageous slanders in
one
short sentence?

Again with the 'slander' claim.

Yes, because another slander took place. If you were rational, you would not be
surprised.

Post by A Brown
It's not slander when someone disagrees with your position.

What are you talking about? I never said it was. Burkadies is slandering the
entire Roman Catholic Church -- and a great many other Christians also -- by
claiming that 'they' "cursed Mary as a prostitute"..

Post by A Brown
Second, there are lots of controversial theories about Mary Magdelane, her
life and her role in the Church.
Her history has evolved over the years.

Elevating rumours to the status of "controversial theories" is NOT how history
is done. It is, however, a common method for disinformation, and yes, even
slander.

Post by A Brown
---
[Perhaps. But the connection with the Inquisition seems weak. The
interpretation of Mary Magdelene as the sinful woman was well established
before the Inquisition. --clh]

We need a version of Godwin's Law that includes such spurious mention of the
Inquisition as equivalent to losing by comparing to Hitler;)

[Denis Giron]

Post by A Brown

Post by B.G. Kent
B - Prove that the group that collated the Bible were set up by Jesus..a
man who died 300 years earlier?

Most people don't realize this....that there waas years and years were there
WAS a church....but there was NO Bible.

For me this is part of the catch. In order to know what the Bible is,
you turn to the Church. It is the Presbyters, Bishops and Church
Fathers who can help us know, first, what the scriptures are, and
then, second, how to properly understand them. In my opinion, while
most Protestants would disagree sharply with me, I think the Bible
itself points to exactly this. In other words, my own reading of the
Bible strikes me as pointing man towards the Church as the source of
truth and guidance. So, in short, those calling themselves Christians
can just make things up as they go along, or they can submit to an
authority. If the latter approach is chosen, that begs the question of
which authority they will submit to (I think a serious search down
this road will lead, at least, to the fork between Orthodoxy and
Catholicism).

[Denis Giron]

Post by B.G. Kent
B - if he could allow others to have opinions that
are different from his

I don't know Mr. Johnson, so what follows is merely speculation.
Nonetheless, from my reading of his posts, I am confident that if you
pressed him, you could get him to admit/claim that, without the
guidance of the Church he is nothing, nobody. If that assumption of
mine is correct, then it will mean that he is not berating people for
having a different opinion from him; rather he is berating for being
in opposition to the Church.

Post by B.G. Kent
I find him far too bigoted and insulting
and un-Christianlike

How do you define what a Christian should be like? It seems to me that
much of the Bible (and even most of the apocryphal texts) express a
high amount of confidence, and is hostile towards error.

Let me offer what is, admittedly, a bad analogy. If you consider
yourself a Christian, then try to think of Christian doctrine as being
as on sure footing as mathematics. Imagine Mr. Johnson criticizing you
for, in his understanding, performing a solution to a math problem
incorrectly. Mathematics is not determined by your feelings, nor by
how cordial Mr. Johnson is today. Rather there is an objective
standard by which claims can be measured, and that is it. So too with
Christian doctrine, try to find the objective standard, and judge both
your claims and Mr. Johnson's claims by that.

Post by B.G. Kent
B - Yes I do believe in holy scripture. I determine this by going within
(meditation) and talking to God the source. Next question will no doubt
be..how do you know it is God and not just your own conscience? My answer
would be..that it is hard to explain how to a person until they are there
themselves. Not the best answer but the best I can do. Point is..I am
talking about "myself" my own opinion. I don't talk for every
Christian..and I would never deem to.

But then, with all due respect, how can we prove anything by such
standards? You ask for evidence, but what is the standard by which you
judge evidence? By what bar will the evidence be measured? What if Mr.
Johnson's decision to remain faithful to Orthodox Christianity is the
result of his own gut feeling? What if your gut feeling contradicts my
own? Do we assume the two contradictory positions are both right? Or
do you just assume your gut feeling is correct while my own (or Mr.
Johnson's) is the result of a failure to truly connect with the Divine
Source?

Post by B.G. Kent
I don't believe that the clergy are any better suited
to explain God than anyone else.

Why not? Look at it this way: at the core you have Jesus' teachings.
The best people to go to for determining what teachings go back to
Jesus, as well as how to understand those teachings, would be his own
disciples. After that, it would be those taught by his disciples, and
after that, those taught by them. Maybe such a system is not fool
proof, but it seems safer than just you, or I, or some other guy in
the 21st century, going by their own gut feelings.

Post by B.G. Kent
We are all equal under God and it is a very personal experience we
all have.

Different people's personal experiences and gut feelings are clearly
contradicting one another, therefore this methodology strikes me as
far too close to anarchy (or complete logical incoherence), and thus
strikes me as signigicantly less reliable than trying to find the
shepherds Jesus left behind to tend to his flock, and submitting to
their teachings.

But, in keeping with this discussion about scripture, I would really
like for you to come forward with the canon as you understand it. Tell
us what books are scripture and what books are not, and how you
reached such a conclusion.

Post by B.G. Kent
ps. thankyou for treating me kindly.

You are welcome, but I must confess that (A) I strongly and sharply
disagree with you, and (B) I think your position is closer to a sort
of mystical Agnosticism than anything analogous to Christianity (no
offense).

I look forward to your next post.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Denis Giron

Post by B.G. Kent
B - if he could allow others to have opinions that
are different from his

I don't know Mr. Johnson, so what follows is merely speculation.
Nonetheless, from my reading of his posts, I am confident that if you
pressed him, you could get him to admit/claim that, without the
guidance of the Church he is nothing, nobody.

An excellent summary, Denis. Of course Bren never saw this because she never
thought to 'press' or to ask the right question. And she never thought to ask
the right question because she is so bound and determined to believe that she
_is_ "something, somebody", not only without the guidance of the Church, but
even in steadfast _opposition_ to it.

But I think you and I will agree that people so hell-bent on such stubborn
opposition to their own greatest benefit will meed the sorry fate perdicted by
Solomon (whether pseudonymously or not) in:

'How long, ye thoughtless, will ye love thoughtlessness? And how long will
scorners delight them in scorning, and fools hate knowledge? Turn you at my
reproof; behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words
unto you. Because I have called, and ye refused, I have stretched out my hand,
and no man attended, But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of
my reproof; I also, in your calamity, will laugh, I will mock when your dread
cometh; When your dread cometh as a storm, and your calamity cometh on as a
whirlwind; when trouble and distress come upon you. Then will they call me, but
I will not answer, they will seek me earnestly, but they shall not find me. For
that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD; They would
none of my counsel, they despised all my reproof. Therefore shall they eat of
the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices. For the
waywardness of the thoughtless shall slay them, and the confidence of fools
shall destroy them.
(Pro 1:22-32 JPS)

Post by Denis Giron
If that assumption of
mine is correct, then it will mean that he is not berating people for
having a different opinion from him; rather he is berating for being
in opposition to the Church.

Again: an excellent summary. I am glad to see that _somebody_ understands what I
am trying to do here;)

[snip]

[B.G. Kent]

Post by Denis Giron

Post by A Brown

Post by B.G. Kent
B - Prove that the group that collated the Bible were set up by Jesus..a
man who died 300 years earlier?

Most people don't realize this....that there waas years and years were there
WAS a church....but there was NO Bible.

For me this is part of the catch. In order to know what the Bible is,
you turn to the Church. It is the Presbyters, Bishops and Church
Fathers who can help us know, first, what the scriptures are, and
then, second, how to properly understand them.

B - why? why do they know it any better than yourself? why give your own
power your own connection to God over to another?

Post by Denis Giron
truth and guidance. So, in short, those calling themselves Christians
can just make things up as they go along, or they can submit to an
authority. If the latter approach is chosen, that begs the question of
which authority they will submit to (I think a serious search down this
road will lead, at least, to the fork between Orthodoxy and
Catholicism).

B - and how do you know that a so-called authority is actually an
authority?

Bren

[B.G. Kent]

Post by Denis Giron

Post by B.G. Kent
B - if he could allow others to have opinions that
are different from his

I don't know Mr. Johnson, so what follows is merely speculation.
Nonetheless, from my reading of his posts, I am confident that if you
pressed him, you could get him to admit/claim that, without the
guidance of the Church he is nothing, nobody. If that assumption of
mine is correct, then it will mean that he is not berating people for
having a different opinion from him; rather he is berating for being
in opposition to the Church.

B - but still it is HIS idea of what the church is.

Post by Denis Giron

Post by B.G. Kent
I find him far too bigoted and insulting
and un-Christianlike

How do you define what a Christian should be like? It seems to me that
much of the Bible (and even most of the apocryphal texts) express a
high amount of confidence, and is hostile towards error.

B - to myself and I can only speak for myself as all people are subjects
therefore speak in subjectivisms...to be a Christian is to be
kind,loving,treating others the way you would like to be treated, to have
faith in God and to treat all the same..no one better or worse.
The Bible is not "Christianity" to me. The Bible is an adjunct to
Christianity..something that can perhaps help you along if you study long
enough. The Bible is not to be used by people that THINK They know it all
to bash over the heads of those that they believe don't think like them.

Post by Denis Giron
Let me offer what is, admittedly, a bad analogy. If you consider
yourself a Christian, then try to think of Christian doctrine as being
as on sure footing as mathematics. Imagine Mr. Johnson criticizing you
for, in his understanding, performing a solution to a math problem
incorrectly. Mathematics is not determined by your feelings, nor by
how cordial Mr. Johnson is today. Rather there is an objective
standard by which claims can be measured, and that is it. So too with
Christian doctrine, try to find the objective standard, and judge both
your claims and Mr. Johnson's claims by that.

B - you believe that the bible must be taken objectively? I personally
don't. I believe it is up to us all to interpret and understand using
accompanying books and historical understandings and also the concept of
parable and koan...and the fallibility of humanity to screw up
things...like the interpretation for ALL of the Bible. Math is not as
subjective...Math is supposedly an objective science...the Bible as I
understand it..is not.

Post by Denis Giron

Post by B.G. Kent
B - Yes I do believe in holy scripture. I determine this by going within
(meditation) and talking to God the source. Next question will no doubt
be..how do you know it is God and not just your own conscience? My answer
would be..that it is hard to explain how to a person until they are there
themselves. Not the best answer but the best I can do. Point is..I am
talking about "myself" my own opinion. I don't talk for every
Christian..and I would never deem to.

But then, with all due respect, how can we prove anything by such
standards?

B - How can you prove with what you have now?


You ask for evidence, but what is the standard by which you

Post by Denis Giron
judge evidence? By what bar will the evidence be measured? What if Mr.
Johnson's decision to remain faithful to Orthodox Christianity is the
result of his own gut feeling? What if your gut feeling contradicts my
own? Do we assume the two contradictory positions are both right? Or
do you just assume your gut feeling is correct while my own (or Mr.
Johnson's) is the result of a failure to truly connect with the Divine
Source?

B - never have and never will. I don't speak for all..I only speak for
myself and get irritated at those that believe they can speak for
all....in black and white terms unless that person be Jesus the Christ
himself. I am not saying I am right or Mr. Johnson is wrong or right..just
that I will not bash someone over the head with subjections for ALL that I
cannot prove. It is not Mr. Johnsons beliefs that I disagree with..it is
his "one" belief that he can speak for all.

Post by Denis Giron

Post by B.G. Kent
I don't believe that the clergy are any better suited
to explain God than anyone else.

Why not? Look at it this way: at the core you have Jesus' teachings.
The best people to go to for determining what teachings go back to
Jesus, as well as how to understand those teachings, would be his own
disciples. After that, it would be those taught by his disciples, and
after that, those taught by them. Maybe such a system is not fool
proof, but it seems safer than just you, or I, or some other guy in
the 21st century, going by their own gut feelings.

B - have you ever played a game known as telephone? one person says
something to the next and around it goes in a circle..at the end it bares
little connection to the original statement. All it takes is one or fifty
or a thousand teachers to get something wrong to pass it on to the next
and then they pass it on and so on and so forth. To believe that the
clergy cannot be wrong again says that you believe that one person is
closer to God than another.

Post by Denis Giron

Post by B.G. Kent
We are all equal under God and it is a very personal experience we
all have.

Different people's personal experiences and gut feelings are clearly
contradicting one another, therefore this methodology strikes me as
far too close to anarchy (or complete logical incoherence), and thus
strikes me as signigicantly less reliable than trying to find the
shepherds Jesus left behind to tend to his flock, and submitting to
their teachings.

B - if one has patience ones knows that the truth will out eventually. One
iron rule forcing others to believe because they believe they have the
objective truth makes for fine soldiers...but we are not to force our
brains into believing something made of man ...or of this world....we are
to be open to Christ.

Post by Denis Giron
But, in keeping with this discussion about scripture, I would really
like for you to come forward with the canon as you understand it. Tell
us what books are scripture and what books are not, and how you
reached such a conclusion.

B - this I cannot do. It is up to each of us to find his/her own way. I
will never tell a person what is right or wrong as far as God goes..but
only subjective opinion. God is not a mathmatical equation to be just
figured out.

Post by Denis Giron

Post by B.G. Kent
ps. thankyou for treating me kindly.

You are welcome, but I must confess that (A) I strongly and sharply
disagree with you, and (B) I think your position is closer to a sort
of mystical Agnosticism than anything analogous to Christianity (no
offense).

B - that's fine. Not everyone can understand my beliefs...some can..and
some can't. I disagree with much of what you believe as well. I
totally believe in God..I totally believe in what I believe. I am also
truthful enough to know that I can be wrong and that so can everyone.
No offense.

Post by Denis Giron
I look forward to your next post.

B - that's it. I hope you get something out of it. I will never be one for
telling someone what Christ is..only what I believe Christ is. To each
his/her own.

In love of Christ,
Bren

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by Denis Giron

Post by B.G. Kent
B - if he could allow others to have opinions that
are different from his

I don't know Mr. Johnson, so what follows is merely speculation.
Nonetheless, from my reading of his posts, I am confident that if you
pressed him, you could get him to admit/claim that, without the
guidance of the Church he is nothing, nobody. If that assumption of
mine is correct, then it will mean that he is not berating people for
having a different opinion from him; rather he is berating for being
in opposition to the Church.

B - but still it is HIS idea of what the church is.

Actually, no. THis is just one example of the many ways in which you
misunderstand what you read in this NG. It is not _my_ idea at all. It is the
Church's own idea.

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by Denis Giron

Post by B.G. Kent
I find him far too bigoted and insulting
and un-Christianlike

How do you define what a Christian should be like? It seems to me that
much of the Bible (and even most of the apocryphal texts) express a
high amount of confidence, and is hostile towards error.

B - to myself and I can only speak for myself as all people are subjects
therefore speak in subjectivisms.

This, of course, is absolute nonsense. If you actually knew even the most
_elementary_ parts of philosophy, such as what can be learned by reading any of
Mortimer Adler's books, or from a basic intro to Epistemology, such as
http://radicalacademy.com/prcminicourseepistemology1.htm, you would know better
than to make this _obviously_ false assertion.

No, Bren, it is NOT true that "all people are subjects therefore speak in
subjectivisms".

Post by B.G. Kent
..to be a Christian is to be
kind,loving,treating others the way you would like to be treated, to have
faith in God and to treat all the same..no one better or worse.

No. That is not what "to be a Christian" is. To be a Christian is to be a
_follower_ of _Christ_. Not of Buddha, nor of a Hindu teacher etc.

[snip]

[c***@flapper.net]

Post by Burkladies
Gospel of Mary
22) The Savior said, All nature, all formations, all creatures exist
in and with one another, and they will be resolved again into their
own roots.
23) For the nature of matter is resolved into the roots of its own
nature alone.
24) He who has ears to hear, let him hear.
25) Peter said to him, Since you have explained everything to us, tell
us this also: What is the sin of the world?
26) The Savior said There is no sin, but it is you who make sin when
you do the things that are like the nature of adultery, which is
called sin.
27) That is why the Good came into your midst, to the essence of every
nature in order to restore it to its root.
28) Then He continued and said, That is why you become sick and die,
for you are deprived of the one who can heal you.
29) He who has a mind to understand, let him understand.
30) Matter gave birth to a passion that has no equal, which proceeded
from something contrary to nature. Then there arises a disturbance in
its whole body.
31) That is why I said to you, Be of good courage, and if you are
discouraged be encouraged in the presence of the different forms of
nature.
32) He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

Why print part of a false gospel and pretend it has value?

Did you know that the Qur'an quotes part of the gospel of mary as
though muhammed got it from God?

Checker

[B.G. Kent]

Post by c***@flapper.net

Post by Burkladies
Gospel of Mary
22) The Savior said, All nature, all formations, all creatures exist
in and with one another, and they will be resolved again into their
own roots.
23) For the nature of matter is resolved into the roots of its own
nature alone.
24) He who has ears to hear, let him hear.
25) Peter said to him, Since you have explained everything to us, tell
us this also: What is the sin of the world?

...

Post by c***@flapper.net
Why print part of a false gospel and pretend it has value?
Did you know that the Qur'an quotes part of the gospel of mary as
though muhammed got it from God?
Checker

B - Prove that it is a "false gospel" instead of just aping the church's
(Rome) edicts. As far as your last line please show where in the Koran
that it does this.

Bren

[**Rowland Croucher**]

<>

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by c***@flapper.net
Why print part of a false gospel and pretend it has value?
Did you know that the Qur'an quotes part of the gospel of mary as
though muhammed got it from God?
Checker

B - Prove that it is a "false gospel" instead of just aping the church's
(Rome) edicts. As far as your last line please show where in the Koran
that it does this.
Bren

Lee Strobbel (who's mostly a bit too conservative theologically for my
liking) has an excellent section on the Gospel of Mary in his new book
on Jesus: which is good (so far)... I'll post a review/summary on our
website in the next week or so (parousia permitting)
--
Shalom/Salaam/Pax! Rowland Croucher

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/ (20,000 articles 4000 humor)

Blogs - http://rowlandsblogs.blogspot.com/

Justice for Dawn Rowan - http://dawnrowansaga.blogspot.com/

Funny Jokes and Pics - http://funnyjokesnpics.blogspot.com/

[Gordon]

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 02:32:06 GMT, "B.G. Kent"

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by c***@flapper.net

Post by Burkladies
Gospel of Mary
22) The Savior said, All nature, all formations, all creatures exist
in and with one another, and they will be resolved again into their
own roots.
23) For the nature of matter is resolved into the roots of its own
nature alone.
24) He who has ears to hear, let him hear.
25) Peter said to him, Since you have explained everything to us, tell
us this also: What is the sin of the world?

...

Post by c***@flapper.net
Why print part of a false gospel and pretend it has value?
Did you know that the Qur'an quotes part of the gospel of mary as
though muhammed got it from God?
Checker

B - Prove that it is a "false gospel" instead of just aping the church's
(Rome) edicts. As far as your last line please show where in the Koran
that it does this.
Bren

I wonder if Islam and the Koran would ever have existed had the
Arabs not been motivated to distance themselves from the Western
Roman Empire and the Roman Catholic religious organization. I
also wonder if Muhammad was indeed the founder of Islam, or if he
actually taught Christianity but his teachings were not accepted
by the Arabs because of their apprehensions of becoming
subservient to the Western Roman Empire by and through means of
the Roman Catholic religious organization.

In some respects it seems more likely that Muhammad indeed taught
Christianity, but after his death Abu Bakr and those others who
were in opposition to becoming linked to Rome, altered Muhammad's
teachings into Islam and established the center of their religion
at Mecca.

If Muhammad was not teaching Christianity, how die he muster such
strong support from the other Christian people? Had he indeed
been teaching that Jesus was not God incarnate, as the Koran
teaches, those Christians surely would have labeled him
Antichrist and would not have been supportive of him at all.

Christians such as The Negus of Abyssinia came to Muhammad's
rescue and supported him when he and his clan of followers were
being attacked by the Quraish. Muhammad's wife, Khadijah's
cousin, Warraq was very supportive of Muhammad during his initial
activities as a Christian. Warraq died before the going got
really rough.

No writings of Muhammad's actual teachings and living survived.
Were any such writings systematically collected and destroyed in
the process of re-directing Muhammad's teachings and his
followers into Islam?

Gordon

[zach]

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by c***@flapper.net
Why print part of a false gospel and pretend it has value?

B - Prove that it is a "false gospel" instead of just aping the church's
(Rome) edicts.

You are the one who is saying that we shouldn't take the canonized
Gospel seriously. Why do you defend this one? It is, as you say, just
a book.

[B.G. Kent]

On Sun, 21 Oct 2007, Gordon wrote:

*snip only for space*

Post by Gordon
If Muhammad was not teaching Christianity, how die he muster such
strong support from the other Christian people? Had he indeed
been teaching that Jesus was not God incarnate, as the Koran
teaches, those Christians surely would have labeled him
Antichrist and would not have been supportive of him at all.

B - I'm not so certain of that...there were Christians who believed that
Jesus was not God incarnate. Unfortunately those Christians were murdered
...or jailed during the Inquisitions by the church.
Many Christians and Muslims and Jews coexisted peaceably in Spain
pre-Inquisition.

Bren

[B.G. Kent]

Post by zach

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by c***@flapper.net
Why print part of a false gospel and pretend it has value?

B - Prove that it is a "false gospel" instead of just aping the church's
(Rome) edicts.

You are the one who is saying that we shouldn't take the canonized
Gospel seriously. Why do you defend this one? It is, as you say, just
a book.

B - I have never said that "you" shouldn't take the Gospel
seriously...I've only said that I don't take it literally and to judge me
on that with no
proof to accuracy is error-filled.

Bren

[Burkladies]

Savior had spoken

Mary answered and said, "What is hidden from you I will impart to
you." And she began to say the following words to them. "I," she said,
"I saw the Lord in a vision and I said to him, 'Lord, I saw you today
in a vision.' He answered and said to me, 'Blessed are you, since you
did not waver at the sight of me. For where the mind is, there is your
countenance' [cf. Matt. 6:21]. I said to him, 'Lord, the mind which
sees the vision, does it see it through the soul or through the
spirit?' The Savior answered and said, 'It sees neither through the
soul nor through the spirit, but the mind, which is between the two,
which sees the vision, and it is...'"
earlychristianwritings.com

Blessings

[Burkladies]

The inquisition is proof of the Church's greed. They found the need
to curse Mary the apostle as a prostitute, because of her wisdom and
love.

Your kidding Denis right?
As a christian and a teacher I disagree with your opinion of Matt. I
share the sentiments of the others.

[Denis Giron]

Post by Burkladies
Your kidding Denis right?
As a christian and a teacher I disagree with your opinion of Matt. I
share the sentiments of the others.

First of all, no, I wasn't kidding.

Look through the archives of this newsgroup, and you'll find posts
where Mr. Johnson has been critical of claims I have made. That
doesn't suffice as grounds on which to just reject everything he
writes out of hand. The man is a valuable source of Orthodox insight
in this newsgroup. With all due respect to you, I think the problem is
that you don't understand where he is coming from. You don't seem to
believe in submitting to historical Christianity (or trying to find
the true Church and following it), rather, for you, Christianity is
something to be defined based on gut feelings, and differences should
be respected.

I sincerely apologize if what I wrote above comes off as offensive. It
is not my intention to offend you. Nonetheless, I still believe that
you are so put off by Mr. Johnson because you don't understand his
love for the ancient, historical faith. He is critical of (and, I
suppose, openly hostile to) new innovations which seek to change his
ancient faith, while you feel that he should just accept such
differences as equally legitimate.

As my understanding of Christianity grows, I think it is very possible
(perhaps even probable) that I will adopt positions which, if shared
in this group, Mr. Johnson will be harshly critical of. But I will
never lose respect for him, because, unlike those who misunderstand
him, I do not see him as being arrogant. He is not using "Matt Johnson
has declared it so" as the measuring stick of all doctrine; rather he
is using the ancient creeds, patristic writings, and Orthodox
Christianity as the bar by which claims must be judged. He is not
propping himself up as the final authority; rather he has submitted to
the authority of the Church, as he understands it. I think that is a
fair approach, and in any future disagreement I may have with Mr.
Johnson, I will try to understand which one, between us, is more in
line with historical Christianity.