How To Get To Heaven When You Die

[shrewsbury]

no, some gnostics may have claimed it to be the true way, but again not all. just like some christians believe the earth is only 6000 years old.

the oldest gnostic find thus far is associated with the 2nd century, and guess what? they are a lot harder to find, because they were burnt, considered blasphamy by the church, and outlawed.

the new testament, and the only thing that differs christians, is wriiten in greek, not something commonly spoken by the villagers jesus would have interacted with.

here is a nice quote for you

Recall the Aramaic phrase so well recorded by the Evangelists, and spoken by Jesus as He was dying on the Cross: Eloi Eloi lema sabactani. These Words, found in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, are interpreted for us as a Prayer of Jesus. They were in fact the beginning of Psalm 22, spoken by Jesus in Aramaic, and faithfully written down by the Evangelists in Greek. It is possible that the Evangelists wished to preserve and hand down through their writings some words certainly spoken by Jesus, words which the Early Christians (since they spoke Aramaic) faithfully remembered.

you haven't commented on the one question i keep asking. why have you chosen to respect the gospel of mary?

here is my honest answer, as a father of three daughters and a husband, i believe in the empowerment of women and that they have always played an important role in history.

as an internal martial arts practitioner i have studied many esoteric arts and mystic teachings, the book of mary seems to fit all those things nicely together for me, yet it does not oppose any of the teachings of jesus in the new testament, nor does it sway me from christianity, in fact it secures it deeper for me.

i don't want to bore you by quoting and explaining what i think it means, but something with it makes sense. the real issue is the work has been found in 3 different countries, but if you put them all together they are still far from complete.

but peter doubting mary seems to fit not only a mans perspective in those days, but peter known for his temper, it seems plausible.

it is not crazy enough that us christians believe what we believe, so to doubt other things that seem a little out there, seems to be contradictory

judas was not closer, but had a mission that no other had. he had to turn his Savior over to the romans for certain death. it would be worse than sacrificing your own family, you would be destined to be responsible for your own Gods death, so judas may have not been a coward but braver than most anyone could possibly be.

just like in judaism there is an orthodox and mystic side to it

[shrewsbury]

i should add, i don't want you think i disrespect anything you believe, nor do i "think it's wrong".

but i do enjoy debating this with you, you seem intelligent and pretty well versed,i always appreciate when others take the time to tell me their side of things

[ensbergcollector]

i should add, i don't want you think i disrespect anything you believe, nor do i "think it's wrong".

but i do enjoy debating this with you, you seem intelligent and pretty well versed,i always appreciate when others take the time to tell me their side of things

i enjoy debating with you too. i like being able to debate without people getting all heated. i will reply to your last post a little later. have family in town. thanks!!

[Paddington]

I didn't read all 12 pages, but theres more to salvation than a simple prayer. Anyone can say it and do something completely different the next day. It's a good start to realize those things, but saying a simple prayer isn't cutting it.

There is nothing more to salvation. Christ did the work. He provides the salvation. That's why the bible says that it's a free gift. All we have to do is take it.

Grace means unearned favor. A gift is something that you don't earn. It's free. All you do is accept it. Words in Parentheses added by me.

Eph 2:8 For by grace (unearned favor) you are saved through faith (In Jesus), and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.

It's not by OUR righteousness that we get salvation. It's by trusting in Christ Jesus's righteousness. We washes us clean.

Tit 3:5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit,

[Paddington]

Jesus, who is more important than the bible (for christians) never taught you had to be part of a church to be christian.

this is the main reason the "bible" was put together, so man have could control over your religion.

this is not to say churches can't play an important role nor that they do not help out communities, but they are not needed to reach gods salvation

It is absolutely true that salvation does NOT come through church, but ONLY through faith in Jesus Christ and His finished work on the cross, believers are still required as go, not for salvation, but to exhort one another.

Heb 10:25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

[Paddington]

and where do you get the information that mary was jesus' main person and his confidant?

you do know that the "gospel of mary" as well as the "gospel of thomas" and the "gospel of judas" and a ton of others, were almost 100% proven to be written by the gnostics? As in, not by the people they claimed to be written by. do a little research on the gnostics. The same people who brought you the gospel of mary are the same people who brought you the "jesus was a hologram" idea as well as the "the spirit of God entered a normal man jesus at his baptism and left him at the garden" so that they didn't have to accept that the son of God died on the cross.

in fact, the church did not shun mary. First of all, at the time of jesus, women were not even allowed to testify in court. Their opinion meant nothing. So, for the gospels to even record that mary was the one who was the first witness to jesus' resurrection was a huge issue, and in fact is one that skeptics used to refute the resurrection story.

the language in paul's writings about women's roles, which have been used to show a sexist slant in the church, were in fact far more progressive toward women then anything to be found in the culture at the time.

That's so true. Those books were rejected from the bible because they weren't written by the actual people, nor were they written by the actual eyewitnesses like the cannonical scriptures. They were written 150 years or more after the events. The people were dead by then. One big reason why the books that were accepted were accepted is because they WERE written by the actual eyewitnesses and within their lifetimes.

[Paddington]

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

That's not exactly true. The church is supposed to be led by God through men. Their job is to feed the people the word of God and lead them to worshipping Him. Unfortunately, in some churches, the man is not submitting to God and is actually leading God's people astray. That's why we have to line up all teachings with the Word of God, the Bible.

[Paddington]

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.

Question: How to you decide which parts are true and which parts are false then? If one part is false then none of it can be trusted. I believe it's all 100% true. It was written by the actual eyewitnesses, the gnostics were NOT. Big difference.

[shrewsbury]

Question: How to you decide which parts are true and which parts are false then? If one part is false then none of it can be trusted. I believe it's all 100% true. It was written by the actual eyewitnesses, the gnostics were NOT. Big difference.

simply by not taking it out of context, trying to look at it from the period it was written, and trying to be open minded. i never said any of it was false, but it's the peoples interpretation that make it not what i think it should be.

That's so true. Those books were rejected from the bible because they weren't written by the actual people, nor were they written by the actual eyewitnesses like the cannonical scriptures.

that's funny, there is no way to prove mark, luke or any of the gang wrote any of those works. even the original writing cannot be found and cannot be traced back before the 2nd century AD. but we do see mention of the "gnostic" works around 130 AD.

if you never read them, then how would you know what they contain or what they represent? the bible was put togetehr by a roman pagan, and conviently after the gnostics started in some serious debate with the then chrsitian scholars.

The Council interrogated Arius using Scripture, only to find that he had a new way of interpreting every verse they brought before him. Finally, they used the argument that Arius' view had to be wrong because it was new.

[Paddington]

simply by not taking it out of context, trying to look at it from the period it was written, and trying to be open minded. i never said any of it was false, but it's the peoples interpretation that make it not what i think it should be.



that's funny, there is no way to prove mark, luke or any of the gang wrote any of those works. even the original writing cannot be found and cannot be traced back before the 2nd century AD. but we do see mention of the "gnostic" works around 130 AD.

if you never read them, then how would you know what they contain or what they represent? the bible was put togetehr by a roman pagan, and conviently after the gnostics started in some serious debate with the then chrsitian scholars.

The very last book was completed by A.D. 90

Most schalars date them as such: They were all written by the witneesses and within the lifetime of those who knew Jesus.

http://www.ucg.org/bible-faq/when-we...-bible-written

The bible was put together by the council of nicea. And he wasn't a pegan. He converted to Christianity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea