How To Get To Heaven When You Die

[Wickabee]

the bible specifically states that there should be church leaders. The bible even goes as far as to give qualifications for elders and deacons.

now, i agree that there should be no one claiming to lead out of being closer to God but the church is told to appoint leadership.

Then the church is being led by men.
Thanks for proving my point.

[shrewsbury]

the gnostics, like many christians have many beliefs. and no one can prove who the non bible gospels were written by. if we go by this, then most of the new testament was written way after the death of jesus and they themselves would know little but hand me down traditions of chists life.

the originals letters have not been discovered, even the discovery of the dead sea scrolls, shows that they were copies of other earlier texts, but do not age themselves to the times these were suppose to be written.

does jesus state, in any works, that we should follow the new testament? of course not, it did not exist in his times

[AUTaxMan]

Then the church is being led by men.
Thanks for proving my point.

What, exactly, is your point? That men should not lead the church? If not, then who would teach the message?

[ensbergcollector]

Then the church is being led by men.
Thanks for proving my point.

who should be in charge then? someone has to pay the bills. someone has to decide things for the church. etc.

[ensbergcollector]

the gnostics, like many christians have many beliefs. and no one can prove who the non bible gospels were written by. if we go by this, then most of the new testament was written way after the death of jesus and they themselves would know little but hand me down traditions of chists life.

the originals letters have not been discovered, even the discovery of the dead sea scrolls, shows that they were copies of other earlier texts, but do not age themselves to the times these were suppose to be written.

does jesus state, in any works, that we should follow the new testament? of course not, it did not exist in his times

if you look at things historically, it is very easy to determine what books/letters are authentic. The only people who claim the gnostics hold any validity are the people who like what they say better so they claim they are legitimate. The gnostics were not even viewed by the early church (not catholics, the actual church in the first 200 years AD) as followers of christ. they were viewed almost as a cult who wanted to take pieces of the gospel and then change it for their own purposes.
all the gnostic gospels have one thing in common which is the one thing that proves them to be false. All the gnostic gospels (mary, judas, thomas, etc) all claim that their author was the closest confidant of jesus. All claim that jesus would speak to the masses, then he would speak to the disciples, then to peter, james, and john, and then jesus would take (insert gnostic gospel writers name) aside and tell them the actual truth. The very claim of all the gnostic gospels shows all of them to be false.
do you have any claim of mary's relationship to jesus other than the gnostic gospel of mary? since you seem to be arguing that we don't have to listen to the new testament, then why are you choosing to listen to the gospel of mary which is far less credible?

[shrewsbury]

just to make this simple, the only evidence of anything in the bible being true is very small and up for debate. even Pilot as an historical figure was proven in the last decade with a discovery of a plaque with his name, but no mention of jesus. even crucifiction cannot be proven, except one single bone, found within the last decade, don't think it was jesus'.

accounts of historians differ from that of the bible, and even the dead sea scrolls are mere copies. there was no printing press so it would be easy to copy a document and it not be word for word, but this does not mean they were not written.

so no, it is not easy to determine anything, and the church has always been out to distinguish any beliefs but their own, this is common with man, my way or the highway.

no different than thinking baptism is the way to heaven, but yet we can see many things, in the bible, that say this isn't so.

if the gnostic were so worthless why did the church hide and destroy these documents? their faith being better would make them erelavant and with god on their side, why does man need to do any of these things? well, because he is man, so he is corrupt.

how about a women lead the church?

The very claim of all the gnostic gospels shows all of them to be false.
do you have any claim of mary's relationship to jesus other than the gnostic gospel of mary? since you seem to be arguing that we don't have to listen to the new testament, then why are you choosing to listen to the gospel of mary which is far less credible?

hum, how about portraying her as a hooker? the time she spent with jesus and the relationship of a man and woman versus man and man. woman are better listners and quite often more intellectual than man, and have a better nature than most men.
common sense more than anything, think about what you would share with a woman friend over a man friend.

. She became Jesus' close friend and most prominent during his last days, being present at the cross after the male disciples (excepting John the Beloved) had fled, and at his burial. She was the first person to see Jesus after his Resurrection,[3] according to both John 20 and Mark 16:9.

she seems pretty important to me

[ensbergcollector]

just to make this simple, the only evidence of anything in the bible being true is very small and up for debate. even Pilot as an historical figure was proven in the last decade with a discovery of a plaque with his name, but no mention of jesus. even crucifiction cannot be proven, except one single bone, found within the last decade, don't think it was jesus'.

accounts of historians differ from that of the bible, and even the dead sea scrolls are mere copies. there was no printing press so it would be easy to copy a document and it not be word for word, but this does not mean they were not written.

so no, it is not easy to determine anything, and the church has always been out to distinguish any beliefs but their own, this is common with man, my way or the highway.

no different than thinking baptism is the way to heaven, but yet we can see many things, in the bible, that say this isn't so.

if the gnostic were so worthless why did the church hide and destroy these documents? their faith being better would make them erelavant and with god on their side, why does man need to do any of these things? well, because he is man, so he is corrupt.

how about a women lead the church?



hum, how about portraying her as a hooker? the time she spent with jesus and the relationship of a man and woman versus man and man. woman are better listners and quite often more intellectual than man, and have a better nature than most men.
common sense more than anything, think about what you would share with a woman friend over a man friend.



she seems pretty important to me

i'm trying to keep things straight, if I didn't I'm sorry.

as for mary being a prostitute, why would we assume that to be false. If anything, it only furthered the idea of jesus being the forgiving God that he was. It didn't stop her from being the first to see of his resurrection, etc. Don't really see that being added just to discredit her.

also, better listener? how many men do you know who confide in a female (other than their wife) over their male friends? So you choose to believe Mary was a closer confidant of jesus because women are better listeners? really? So you discredit all of scripture but you believe the gospel of mary because it makes more sense to you?

the church destroyed gnostic writings because it was heresy and false teaching. I don't defend it, i think you should let people decide for themselves but assume for a minute that there actually is a line of thinking that is truth. wouldn't you want to protect those who want to follow the truth from false teachings that would lead them astray?

care to show me the many things in the bible that show baptism isn't needed?

jesus and the early christians are talked about by numerous non-religious writers of the times. Jesus' existence isn't really up for debate. It is only a matter of whether you think he was the son of god or just a man.


I guess I will ask again. Why do you discredit all of the new testament and yet believe in a book like the gospel of mary? is it really because it makes more sense to you?

[PDawson21]

i guess i will ask again. Why do you discredit all of the new testament and yet believe in a book like the gospel of mary? Is it really because it makes more sense to you?

amen

[shrewsbury]

Why do you discredit all of the new testament and yet believe in a book like the gospel of mary?

who says i discredited any of the bible? i may not believe in some peoples interpretation of the bible, but not everyones.

you cannot even translate the language jesus spoke into english and it make sense to us. there were no such terms as green or blue, it would be plant like or water like, so don't act like the bible we know was written while jesus was around and still exists in that form today.

[ensbergcollector]

who says i discredited any of the bible? i may not believe in some peoples interpretation of the bible, but not everyones.

you cannot even translate the language jesus spoke into english and it make sense to us. there were no such terms as green or blue, it would be plant like or water like, so don't act like the bible we know was written while jesus was around and still exists in that form today.

you have basically said that the new testament is untrustworthy because the manner of which the books were chosen. However, you talk about mary in ways that are only referred to in the gnostic gospels.

actually the old testament was written in hebrew and the new testament was written in greek. both of which you can translate. whoever told you otherwise lied.

we have portions of new testaments writings that date back as far as around 100 ad so it isn't hard to see that what was back then is still around today.

also, the gnostic gospels are the equivalent to me writing a book and attributing it to mark twain. guess what, it is very easy to look at the known writings of mark twain and figure out that what I wrote isn't authentic. also, you haven't commented on the one question i keep asking. why have you chosen to respect the gospel of mary?

also, as I have said, the gnostic gospels all claim to be the one true source of information. that in effect makes all of them wrong. the writings of the new testament present themselves as part of a community. Even the writings of all four gospels agree that peter james and john were the three closest to jesus. the gnostics all claim that mary was the closest, or judas was, or thomas was, or etc. etc.