Topic: Throw down | |
---|---|
Tribo;
If you think there have been 3 contradictions stated - then I'm disappointed in you. I thought you would have better discernment than that. Abra's "contradiction" is the fallacy of shifting middle. God deals with man the same way - we all die for the sins we commit. What has salvation got to do with that? It certinly doean't prevent it. He's still working on his argument as far as I can see. Krimsa's contradiction is over a lack of exegesis. Not a contradiction at all - but a lack of examination over the term "unclean" Belushi's two points are a bit tougher - but as to the Judas issue - it isn't clear that it is contradictory, more likely it's complimentary. The intended audiences are different, and this brings the matter to a subjective one. I have not done the exegesis on the OT reference - so I'll withhold comment on that one. |
|
|
|
Repetitions and contradictions are understandable for a throw-together collection of documents, but not for some carefully constructed treatise, reflecting a well thoughtout plan. Of the various methods I've seen to "explain" these, so far; 1. "That is to be taken metaphorically." In other words, what is written is not what is meant. I find this entertaining, especially for those who decide what ISN'T to be taken as other than the absolute WORD OF GOD (which just happens to agree with the particular thing they happen to want) 2. "There was more there than...." This is used when one verse says "there was a" and another says "there was b," so they decide there was "A" AND "B" which is said nowhere. This makes them happy, since it doesn't say there WASN'T "A+B." But it doesn't say there was "A+B+little green apples." This is often the same crowd that insists theirs is the ONLY possible interpretation (i.e., only "A") and the only way. I find it entertaining they they don't mind adding to verses or extrapolating things that might have happened. 3. "It has to be understood in context." I find this tedious because it comes from the same crowd that likes to push likewise extracted verses that support their particular view. Often it is just one of the verses in the contradictory set which is supposed to be taken as THE TRUTH when, if you add more to it, it suddenly becomes "out of context." How many of you have gotten JUST John 3:16 (taken out of all context) thrown at you? 4. There was just a copying/writing error." OF COURSE THERE WAS!!! ITS 2000 YEARS OLD FFS!!! This is sometimes called a "transcription error," as in where one number was meant and an incorrect one was copied down. Or what was "quoted" wasn't really what was said, but just what the author thought was said. ... and that's right--I'm not disagreeing with events, I'm disagreeing with what is WRITTEN. Which is apparently agreed that it is incorrect. This is an interesting misdirection to the problem that the Bible itself is wrong. 5. "That is a miracle." Naturally. That is why it is stated as fact. 6. "God works in mysterious ways." A useful dodge when the speaker doesn't understand the conflict between what the Bible SAYS and what they WISH it said. All-in-all, I knew this contest would ultimately not gain anything. The standard tactics that would be used are the typical misdirection of the "fors" (which allows extrapolation and assumption) and the logical responses from the "againsts" (which are not allowed to use assumtion of even the most logical things) Then we have to deal with the temper tantrums of a bible bully, so, people, Im going to depart this thread, realising that a hollow victory is not worth the protons it took to produce it, and Im going to reorganise my sock drawer. Hope you all slept well One more blinding contradiction that I will leave you to debate over ... Who is the father of Joseph? MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli. Jacob. The lineage of Luke is the maternal lineage - and does not state that Joseph was the father of Jesus - but was the wife of Mary. |
|
|
|
Mary had a little lamb....
|
|
|
|
Jacob. The lineage of Luke is the maternal lineage - and does not state that Joseph was the father of Jesus - but was the wife of Mary. Why is the lineage of Luke the maternal one? |
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Mon 08/04/08 04:50 AM
|
|
Spider you claim that no one has thus far offered up a biblical contradiction? What about my last with Genesis and Leviticus? Not to mention there have been several others. I have been unable to accept any rebuttals as successfully refuting the initial contradiction pointed out. Some have been inconsistencies and others have been actual contradictions. Isn’t that kind of your perspective only to be fair?
|
|
|
|
little lamb, little lamb....
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Mon 08/04/08 05:26 AM
|
|
Tribo; If you think there have been 3 contradictions stated - then I'm disappointed in you. I thought you would have better discernment than that. Abra's "contradiction" is the fallacy of shifting middle. God deals with man the same way - we all die for the sins we commit. What has salvation got to do with that? It certinly doean't prevent it. He's still working on his argument as far as I can see. Krimsa's contradiction is over a lack of exegesis. Not a contradiction at all - but a lack of examination over the term "unclean" Belushi's two points are a bit tougher - but as to the Judas issue - it isn't clear that it is contradictory, more likely it's complimentary. The intended audiences are different, and this brings the matter to a subjective one. I have not done the exegesis on the OT reference - so I'll withhold comment on that one. What are you talking about that my Leviticus is a mere misunderstanding of the word "unclean"? You can't just reinvent language to suit the needs of the bible when its clearly being contradictory. That would be bending the rules by all rational estimates. Look at the passages. They are not describing simply putting a mother into quarantine after birth. They are making the claim that she needs to be "cleansed". I don't think they care one bit about the health of the mother. That is not their concern. They want to make sure that she is thought of as tainted in some way by the process of bringing life into the world. This job is supossed to be done by god and he doesnt like the idea of a woman performing it for him. So he comes up with all this cleansing and atonement to try to level the playing field a bit. A. Atonement payments need to be paid to a priest for this "service". B. The purification rite is double the amount of time if she has given birth to a maid or female child. C. As Abra pointed out, they are also insisting that she not touch anything considered holy until this purification process is complete. Tackle those please. |
|
|
|
Without getting into the debate, my understanding of the term "unclean" is that it can be applied to someone who has committed an offensive act before God, or to someone who is not fit to be in "public."
Soldiers returning from battle were required to be kept away from the mass of society because they were "unclean." This is not because they were covered in blood and needed to wash. It was because they needed time to get their "minds right." That kind of up close killing, that has an affect on a person, and you want them to have some time to sort it out. (Hey, just because it was on the history channel doesn't mean it doesn't make sense) I bet teenagers spent all day in the ritual bath. "Self pleasure" would also make you unclean. Something about not spilling "seed" on the ground, I don't remember. They used the term "unclean" in broad general scopes, kind of the way we use the word "evil" today. Not everything that has that term applied to it is. For example Iran isn't evil, it's an area of a map that has been drawn with a pencil. How can land be evil? Their president might be, but I have no way to tell. To focus on the semantics of what a word meant in a certain passage is the debaters equivilant to Bill Clinton asking the definition of "is" was. Basically in the context of the bible "unclean" is the equivalent of the phrase "their is something wrong with them." It doesn't tell you exactly what's wrong, just that something is. Hope that is helpful. |
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Mon 08/04/08 05:52 AM
|
|
Well it certainly doesn't seem to indicate to me that they are referring to her medical condition in any way or that she needs to clean (wash) herself, nor the baby. No sir. I was refuting that argument made by Eljay.
Its also not merely the word "unclean" its the entire Leviticus passage. For some reason he just latched onto that word. The whole verse is pretty negative and its difficult to misinterpret what they are getting at there. |
|
|
|
Edited by
Spidercmb
on
Mon 08/04/08 07:48 AM
|
|
Jacob. The lineage of Luke is the maternal lineage - and does not state that Joseph was the father of Jesus - but was the wife of Mary. Why is the lineage of Luke the maternal one? There is an ancient tradition within Christianity that Mary was Heli's daughter. The belief is that Joseph was adopted by Heli according to the Zelophehad tradition, which allows a man without male heirs to adopt one of his sons-in-law. Also, the name of each of the men mentioned in genealogy in Luke was preceded by "the" (the Heli, the Matthat, the Levi, the Melchi, etc), other than Joseph, which makes Joseph different. Since it was traditional for Jews to exclude women from the genealogies and Luke was making a very clinical and traditional account, it is possible that Luke was recording the genealogy of Mary through her husband, which was done by Jews during that time. |
|
|
|
if the text described the mind as satan, or lack of wisdom, and god is the heart, or wisdom, then biblical text would be more a story of the woe's and victories of mankinds march to wisdom, each generation taught by living experience, rather then being told........
what human is taught by directions, but rather driving it makes it become part of the fabric of ones being..... |
|
|
|
??? - somethings changed ? spiders whole mannerism has changed for the most part? people don't do that in mid stream? somethings up? I'm not saying for sure I'm correct - but it seems as if someone else is responding for him? someone is feeding this info to him and then he is posting it after receiving it? can i prove it? only it is not like anything he's been posting up to the last few post or so? i have a bad feeling about this within me! if this is so XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I came to a realization. A falsehood I believed that caused me to keep God at arm's length. Once the problem became apparent, I was able to deal with it and become a better person. If you wish to know who is feeding me this information, simply ask him, in prayer, to reveal himself to you. |
|
|
|
if the text described the mind as satan, or lack of wisdom, and god is the heart, or wisdom, then biblical text would be more a story of the woe's and victories of mankinds march to wisdom, each generation taught by living experience, rather then being told........ what human is taught by directions, but rather driving it makes it become part of the fabric of ones being..... DB, i think what your saying is reading only profits the mind, but actual expierience profits the soul, i agree if that's the case. you really only learn by expierience - expieriential things give evidence to what the mind learns from reading and this inturn "proves" that which the mind perceives by words alone. correct? |
|
|
|
if the text described the mind as satan, or lack of wisdom, and god is the heart, or wisdom, then biblical text would be more a story of the woe's and victories of mankinds march to wisdom, each generation taught by living experience, rather then being told........ what human is taught by directions, but rather driving it makes it become part of the fabric of ones being..... DB, i think what your saying is reading only profits the mind, but actual expierience profits the soul, i agree if that's the case. you really only learn by expierience - expieriential things give evidence to what the mind learns from reading and this inturn "proves" that which the mind perceives by words alone. correct? absolutely........if man in his primitive state, was NEW, having no wisdom YET, as this is taught by living experience of good and bad, or no good would exist or be "recognized", and "knowledge" was seen as all the eyes see and ears hear and are as "registered" with the mind, then each day as civilization went forward in time, more wisdom was learned, along with more procurement of knowledge at the same time, making god and satan just the terms coined and used for good and bad, KNOWLEDGE making a man want to build and conquer with hands, and WISDOM what make a man want to understand others, which nothing can truly love for only "wanting to" sake unless it understands the GOOD reason why bad happens to themself and others, building things that can be taken back to where one came from, lol....... obviously both of these two aspects of a human nature have been present in ALL mankind since mankind existed, so as mankind proceeded down the path of evolution or advancement in time, both "potentials" within each have committed all acts, some good and some bad, each act created all by man HIMSELF, never by a horned red man as the mind picture the devil, and never by a halo wearing man in white, as the mind picture god, lol.... if one believe in god and say he is alive in them, and this be a truth, as truth or god is wisdom, or as good, and this being does not at the same time, admit that satan as well, or bad, or unwisdom is alive as well, then this make one off balance, an uneven perspective, blind to their own potential and even half of all their acts, as even the core belief system is unbalanced, so it is not important that one believe in god or satan, be it good or bad, or evil or divine, but seeing both potenials exist at all time allow any one being to be as one with themself, and therefore no being can be controlled as even against their will by a half-belief, which will create only half-goods, or one that walks around proclaiming themself to good, and never proclaiming the bad as well, which can allow GREAT atrocities to be created even while proclaiming one is good, and does all for god, lol.......... seems this was the decpetion that religious interpretations promoted, and the preaching of sayings of biblical text as commandments, and so perpetuated this "off balance" thinking thruout all mankind, even since the beginning of time....... if text is heard with the understanding that god be only whole truth, or wisdom, and satan half-truth knowledge, and satan and god were only as identifiers of which was which, then it becomes more a scavenger hunt to SEE which thing spoken came from the mind, and which from the heart, or which thing written came from knowledge, and which from wisdom, and as such these writings are just as have been spoken from many peoples, some saying of satan, and some saying of god, lol...... if one is writing of BOTH perspectives of ones self, then all things read and heard that once made for wars and rumors of wars would be understood differently....... if i write as such, i would say that ****ing ***** is controlling and possevive and a nag and never stops........ then continuing, i would say she is the ****ing greatest thing i have ever laid eyes on, and she fill my heart with all warmth and love, and i can't live without her...... the decpetion that love is all kind words lead to misery..... the ability of any being to speak both sides of their feelings is crucial for any balanced society, and why unrestricted speech is so critical for any love to continue to exist or be manifested, as it becomes buried under a mass of thoughts that were indeed never evil, just "percieved" as evil, and why the word was used, telling they would "sound" as evil........ |
|
|
|
Davidben wrote:
if the text described the mind as satan, or lack of wisdom, and god is the heart, or wisdom, then biblical text would be more a story of the woe's and victories of mankinds march to wisdom, each generation taught by living experience, rather then being told........ what human is taught by directions, but rather driving it makes it become part of the fabric of ones being..... Anyone who can't see that Davidben's words above are the wisest words in this whole godforsaken thread may as well toss in the towel right now. |
|
|
|
if the text described the mind as satan, or lack of wisdom, and god is the heart, or wisdom, then biblical text would be more a story of the woe's and victories of mankinds march to wisdom, each generation taught by living experience, rather then being told........ what human is taught by directions, but rather driving it makes it become part of the fabric of ones being..... DB, i think what your saying is reading only profits the mind, but actual expierience profits the soul, i agree if that's the case. you really only learn by expierience - expieriential things give evidence to what the mind learns from reading and this inturn "proves" that which the mind perceives by words alone. correct? absolutely........if man in his primitive state, was NEW, having no wisdom YET, as this is taught by living experience of good and bad, or no good would exist or be "recognized", and "knowledge" was seen as all the eyes see and ears hear and are as "registered" with the mind, then each day as civilization went forward in time, more wisdom was learned, along with more procurement of knowledge at the same time, making god and satan just the terms coined and used for good and bad, KNOWLEDGE making a man want to build and conquer with hands, and WISDOM what make a man want to understand others, which nothing can truly love for only "wanting to" sake unless it understands the GOOD reason why bad happens to themself and others, building things that can be taken back to where one came from, lol....... obviously both of these two aspects of a human nature have been present in ALL mankind since mankind existed, so as mankind proceeded down the path of evolution or advancement in time, both "potentials" within each have committed all acts, some good and some bad, each act created all by man HIMSELF, never by a horned red man as the mind picture the devil, and never by a halo wearing man in white, as the mind picture god, lol.... if one believe in god and say he is alive in them, and this be a truth, as truth or god is wisdom, or as good, and this being does not at the same time, admit that satan as well, or bad, or unwisdom is alive as well, then this make one off balance, an uneven perspective, blind to their own potential and even half of all their acts, as even the core belief system is unbalanced, so it is not important that one believe in god or satan, be it good or bad, or evil or divine, but seeing both potenials exist at all time allow any one being to be as one with themself, and therefore no being can be controlled as even against their will by a half-belief, which will create only half-goods, or one that walks around proclaiming themself to good, and never proclaiming the bad as well, which can allow GREAT atrocities to be created even while proclaiming one is good, and does all for god, lol.......... seems this was the decpetion that religious interpretations promoted, and the preaching of sayings of biblical text as commandments, and so perpetuated this "off balance" thinking thruout all mankind, even since the beginning of time....... if text is heard with the understanding that god be only whole truth, or wisdom, and satan half-truth knowledge, and satan and god were only as identifiers of which was which, then it becomes more a scavenger hunt to SEE which thing spoken came from the mind, and which from the heart, or which thing written came from knowledge, and which from wisdom, and as such these writings are just as have been spoken from many peoples, some saying of satan, and some saying of god, lol...... if one is writing of BOTH perspectives of ones self, then all things read and heard that once made for wars and rumors of wars would be understood differently....... if i write as such, i would say that ****ing ***** is controlling and possevive and a nag and never stops........ then continuing, i would say she is the ****ing greatest thing i have ever laid eyes on, and she fill my heart with all warmth and love, and i can't live without her...... the decpetion that love is all kind words lead to misery..... the ability of any being to speak both sides of their feelings is crucial for any balanced society, and why unrestricted speech is so critical for any love to continue to exist or be manifested, as it becomes buried under a mass of thoughts that were indeed never evil, just "percieved" as evil, and why the word was used, telling they would "sound" as evil........ People need to print out the above post and study it for however long it takes them to truly understand it. Davidben's words here are the epitome of wisdom. |
|
|
|
Other than I couldn't figure out who the nag was that he loved, I think that is one of the best formulated posts I've ever seen on a thread.
I tend to agree with Abra on this one, my vote in this debate (if I'm in the right post) goes to DB |
|
|
|
Tribo; If you think there have been 3 contradictions stated - then I'm disappointed in you. I thought you would have better discernment than that. Abra's "contradiction" is the fallacy of shifting middle. God deals with man the same way - we all die for the sins we commit. What has salvation got to do with that? It certinly doean't prevent it. He's still working on his argument as far as I can see. Krimsa's contradiction is over a lack of exegesis. Not a contradiction at all - but a lack of examination over the term "unclean" Belushi's two points are a bit tougher - but as to the Judas issue - it isn't clear that it is contradictory, more likely it's complimentary. The intended audiences are different, and this brings the matter to a subjective one. I have not done the exegesis on the OT reference - so I'll withhold comment on that one. eljay: If you think there have been 3 contradictions stated - then I'm disappointed in you. hahaha - well i'll introduce you to my Ex - evidentally she was dissapointed in me also. join the club!! - |
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Mon 08/04/08 02:55 PM
|
|
Eljay, yes of course newborns are brought into sterile environments in modern day hospitals. Actually my mother is a retired labor and delivery RNC so I have some experience with this just based on listening to her talk about work and having little tours of the hospital. You are correct in that, however, this was biblical times so they did not have big sterile nurseries or anywhere similar that they could care for a sick baby or an infirm mother. They had to make do in those situations and primarily relied on the medical assistance of midwives. Or if they did not have that, hopefully an older woman well versed in childbirth to play a crucial role in the delivery and aftercare of the infant. Look at Leviticus carefully and read it. I’m sure you are well versed in most of this anyway. But "unclean" seems to indicate that the birthing rite itself is abhorrent in some fashion. The ability to give birth. Intercourse is not even mentioned. It’s the fact that she is bringing a child into the world that causes this purification ritual as far as I can understand. So yes, you are correct in that it creates a definite scriptural contradiction. It requires it’s followers to "go forth and multiply" and take dominion over the passive Earth BUT make sure you do a lot of cleansing and atonement payments to these priests because its is asked of "god". Also, you still did not answer why if this is for medical concerns for the mother or child, that it would be double the cleansing time period for a maid child (female) and why would turtles, pigeons and lambs need to be paid to priests that were suposidly doing all of this purification? I think if you look at the book of Leviticus and the extended exegesis of "unclean" you will find that most of the instructions concerning the cleansing rituals do not reference or make mention of the actions that caused them as being an atonement for sin. Nowhere is it even suggested that childbirth is a sin - so interpreting "unclean" to mean this is incorrect exegesis. As to paying the priests for performing the rituals - this is a practice that goes on - even today. Be it doctor, nurse, midwife - if you have a child, you're paying somebody. But for the same reason - you are not paying out because of "sin" but of purification, which was a concernment for physical health - not spiritual. Well we are looking at these two contradictory vs. now as they appear in The King James version of the Bible. Clearly they are accusing a woman of being “unclean” and needing to atone for the act of giving birth. I just don’t know how else this could be interpreted. “If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days;” They have described the act that has made her unclean. She has conceived a child. She then bore a child. Now she is to be considered unclean for seven days. There is no mistaking the action. It has been explained. “And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.” Abra caught this so I have to give credit where it is due. This passage alone clearly blows your theory out of the water that it was simply to “provide a sterile environment for the mother and baby.” She has sinned in the eyes of god and her filthy body now requires cleansing. She is to be thought so abhorrent at this point that she is NOT to dare touch anything considered holy. I don’t know what they would define as holy exactly so I’m not going to try to figure it out what she could and could not touch. Clearly there are no medical concerns being expressed here but only harbored resentment and insecurity over this birthing process and the woman’s body. “But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.” This is a personal favorite. If she had a boy, well okay, she’s still a little nasty but we will cut her some slack because she provided us with a male at least. But, if she has another girl creature, yuck, double that ritual atonement! Just in case there were any doubts here about what exactly these peasants were being instructed to do and for whom. There is obviously a new sheriff in town. Bear in mind, these practices would have most likely been very startling and strange to folks. Nonsensical. “And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest:” Did you say this had nothing to do with SIN? I’m not sure how else you can explain that away? “And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a SIN offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean.” Once again, she has sinned by bringing life into the world. I also disagree with your comparison of these priests to midwives. That is absurd. For one thing, they are offering NOTHING in the way of medical assistance to these women. Remember, they are to be considered “unclean”. A priest wouldn’t touch a woman in labor with a ten foot pole other than to chastise her and offer a lot of contempt. Midwives would have been the only ones around to give much needed medical help to a new mother and assist her through the pain and trauma of childbirth. If there was a problem during labor, these women would also be the only source of help with the delivery and care of the infant immediately following birth. Remember, in these times, many new mothers were teenage girls, frightened and unaware of how to nurse and care for a new baby. The midwives would also lend assistance with these new tasks. Sadly, it was not uncommon to lose mother and/or baby during labor. So no, I can’t agree with you that paying off some greedy priest is ANYTHING even remotely comparable to the services that these midwives provided. They were not asking for some silly spiritual cleansing process and to pay for it with lambs! Yeah, that’s what all brand new mothers need…. |
|
|
|
And I can't believe how many misinterpret what it is saying....... Oh come Feral you have to be in total denial to claim otherwise. Just look at the Bible. It has God creating man in the image of God. Then it has God creating women from a rib of man to be his "helpmate". Clearly it has women being "subservient" to men right from the get-go. Then it goes on to blame Eve for luring Adam (the man) into sin? Then it goes on to have daughters sold and traded as wives like livestock. Then it goes on to say that women aren't permitted to speak of important matters in public and must only speak in private to their husbands? I suppose that means that unmarried women aren't allowed to speak at all. Of course, since they were being sold and traded as wives there probably weren't that many unmarried women around in those days. That's not a male-chauvanisitic mythology? You have to be blind not to see the male-chauvanism in the Bible. Either that or be in compelte denial. You preach the Bible a lot on the forums. But according to the Bible that's a no-no. Jesus didn't come to change the laws. And that law was never changed. So there's no reason whatsoever why it shouldn't still be in effect to this very day. You don't even seem to care that you are going against the very book that you preach about. That book says that you aren't supposed to talk about it publically. None of Jesus' disciples were women. Mary Magdalene wasn't a disciple, she was just some kind of girlfriend that hung around. Some theologians have suggested that she was Jesus' wife. Oh my my how you people can reach.....I am the biggest woman's liber that ever walked the planet earth...even as a child if a boy said I could not...well I showed him. Do you think a boy telling me that I can't be quarterback has any bearing on why God gave Adam a helpmate and someone so he would not be alone. When we are subservient in this way...It's not bad.....I am also subservient to my husband but does that mean he does not get put in his place when need be....heck no....does that mean that my husband doesn't place me on a pedistal...nope. You are dealing with old testament abra.....and please show me the scripture where daugters were sold and traded as wives like livestock..... Again old testament law abra...and yes you are correct that women were not allowed to speak of God matters not important matters. And just like for me with Open Bible Churches women are not allowed to be elders....Am I fighting this...you bet I am...... And again saying for yourself then I suppose that means that unmarried women aren't allowed to speak at all......You can't make it up abra to fit the point your trying to make. In that time it was different get over it. Times have changed and women have right....so what exactly is your beef. And it's not a male chauvanistic anything....it was just how it was in that time. But also remember that without women Christ and the disciples would of not been able to do their work....They funded and fed and took care of Jesus and the disciples. Yes abra if you want to look at it as male chauvanism well then by all means do so.....But I don't look at it like that....and this is a woman that has always stood up for her rights with any man....putting many right in their place. Again changing with the times abra.....not understanding....Jesus came to fulfill the law. And we now have women pastors, and women pretty much doing anything they choose....so again abra your theory is blown right out of the water. I am told to go and spread the news of the Lord, his gospels and that every man will know the word of the Lord....It goes against nothing abra......again you are wrong. Learn the difference about what was biblical tradition and how the laws and the bible speak to us today..... Oh again shows the lack of knowledge you truly...Jesus would never of been able to do his work had it not been for Mary Magdalene.......She was the one who took care financially and all other ways so that Jesus and the disciples could preach. She was not his girlfriend.....watching to much Discovery Channel.... |
|
|