Can someone please explain to me why "christians" are so upset about this movie? If it's not truth than isn't it enough for them to know that? Why do they find it necessary to panic and pray for all the "lost souls" and have protests?
Seriously, am I going to have to fight to get into a theatre if I should decide to go see this movie!? I find this to be utter craziness!!
Gretchen

Not all Christians are getting spun up about this. A lot of his is a direct result of media hype and the actions of an excitable and loud minority.

Rob

Gretchen,
I really don't know either..and i'm catholic, sort off..lol

But i can't wait to go and see it, i've read the book and throughly enjoy it, so i'm sure i'll enjoy the movie.

One thing i found though is that if you go see a movie after reading the book...sometimes it does not click...with the book, but will see..

Romain

I was brought up "Catholic" but never "believed" in religion.  I did teach religious education and this is what I learned.  The New Testement was written by  a Greek named Saul (modern name is Paul) after he was struck by lightning and "saw the light".  At this point, Paul decided that he, a Greek, would gather up the writtings of the followers of Christ (Christ now dead for 17 years) and translate the writtings into Greek. He didn't meet all the apoltoles, he never met Jesus and I have no knowledge of his study of the Hebrew language. And if there ARE parralels of our live, all the stories of Jesus are true depending on which spiritual plane you are on.
By the way---the book The DaVinci Code-- was very good and had several flaws.  But so did Sherlock Holmes!!  ie:no where in the Bible does it say the forbidden fruit was an apple.
Enjoy the movie--- I will.  Love and Light--cat

Carol Ann,

For 12 years, I was a Protestant Theology professor at a Catholic university.  I was part of a large group of male professors who successfully sued the university for sex discrmination.  Our lawsuit was nationally discussed in the media.  I dumped my winnings in mu pension fund.   So I am no shill for Roman Catholicism.  Still, the fact that you were victimized by spiritual disinformation from Catholic leaders is no reason to reject Christianity.   In this regard, if you have any burning questions you'd like me to address that might assist you in your spiritual quest, I'd be glad to answer them as best I can.  

Let me draw a parallel between your rejection of Catholicism and some of the reasons why I am appalled by Robert Monroe's books.  Monroe performed dismally the one time his OBE abilities were tested by a reputable parapsychologist, Charles Tart.   Monroe uncritically accepts OBE claims that aliens are here to collect jokes.  He uncritically accepts OBE past life recall of (1) a prior life as a pilot flying his craft through a maze of spears thrown by cave men and (2) a prior life as a novice Catholic priest ordered his superiors to ritually rape and murder a virgin who just happens to be his wife Nancy in our lifetime.   He reports this lunacy with no sense that all but the New Age ghetto would rightly scoff at such claims as the ravings of an unthinking New Age fundamentalist.  

Despite this nonsense, Monroe was brilliant in important ways.  Despite his OBE delusions and his inability to sort out the wheat from the chaff, I do believe he had some genuine OBEs.  Indeed, I regularly experiment with his Gateway CDs and find them a delightful way to explore a deeper level of consciousness, though I find them irrelevant to the question of whether we survice death or can contact the deceased.  But that verdict may change with continued use.   Perhaps, my dismay at Monroe's gullibility is a major reason for my lack of progress, despite frequent use of his Gateway CDs.  I encourage you to salvage the best of your Catholic heritage and then discard the rest, as I do with Monroe

Don

And if I'm not mistaken, which I could be because I haven't been able to afford TMI membership for about 3 years, Charles Tart is on the Board of Directors/Advisors at TMI.

Get your facts straight Berserk. In the book "Catapult, The Biography of Robert A. Monroe", there are several pages dedicated to Bob's and Charles's friendship and experiments. He completely believed in Bob.

Mairlyn

Quote:


I have hestated in writing anything about all this but now I will speak up.  Yes, from my own personal experience as Peter, it is very true. They were married (Peter was at the service) They had many children. They had a love (and still do) so beautiful that it is beyond words.

Now Berserk can trounce both of us.

With Love,
Mairlyn

Ditto.

Matt,

Nothing theologically decisive is at stake in the bogus claim that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married and had children.   In Jesus' day, it was highly unusual for a Jewish male to remain single into his 30s.   But Jesus' unsympathetic Jewish contemporaries would of course object to any claims of His virginal conception.  Indeed, Jesus was widely deemed a bastard in His day.  Illegitiimate Jewish sons were not permitted to marry a Jewish woman.   This stigma may help explain why He remained single.  Also, His constant travel and His sense of impending martyrdom may have contributed to His decision to remain a bachelor.  If Jesus were married, His marital status would not invalidate his Messianic status.  But surely we would expect first-century stories and legends about His wife and children.  

It is possible that Mary Magdalene was Jesus' aunt!  The Greek of John 19:25 leaves it unclear whether there were 2 or 4 women at the cross.  Suppose that John intends to report only two women  Then the following translation (supported by the early church Father John Chrysostom) is possible:

"Standing near the cross were Jesus' mother and his mother's sister, [namely] Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary Magdalene."

This translation has two facts in its favor.  
(1) Whereas Jesus' mother and His mother's sister are unnamed. the last two women are named.   So the naming may simply clarify the identity of the preceding references in the manner indicated by the implicit sense 'namely."

(2) This understanding implies that Joseph is dead and that Jesus' mother married Clopas.  Clopas is identified as Joseph's brother in early Christian tradition.  Joseph's brother.  Thus, "Mary the wife of Clopas" might refer to Jesus' mother.  John Chrysostom knows an early traditon that Mary lived as Clopas's wife after Joseph's death.  

Joseph is probably already dead before Jesus' adult ministry.  Joseph figures in no story of the adult Jesus' life and Jesus is identifed as "the son of Mary" by skeptics in his home town (Mark 6:3).  In a patriarchal culture, this attribution is odd and may imply that Joseph is known to be dead.  

By the law of levirate marriage (Deuteronomy 25:5-10), Joseph's brother Clopas would be obligated to marry Mary if Joseph died without natural children.   Are Jesus' brothers in fact the sons of Clopas by a prior marriage? Two facts are consistent with this:

(1) One of Jesus' brothers is named Joseph (Matthew 13:55).  Jiewhs grandsons were commonly given their grandfather's name.  But it is almost unheard of in late antiquity for a father to give his son his own name.  Kings and high priests are an exception to this pattern of avoiding identical names for both father and son, but Joseph is neither a king nor a high priest.  
(
2)  Early Christian tradition identifies Jesus' brothers as his cousins (so Hegesippus).  If Jesus' brothers were in fact the sons of Clopas, then Jesus' cousins would also legally become his brothers by Mary's levirate marriage.  

If this view of family relationships is correct, then it would be good evidence that Jesus is not the biological son of Joseph.  If He were, it would be incestuous by Jewish law for Mary to marry Clopas.   But a marriage to the husband's brother is legally required if the husband dies without biological children.  The first offspring of this new marriage would then be deemed the son of the deceased husband.  If Clopas thought Jesus was the product of Mary's promiscuity, he is not likely to have married her.   For this reason, if Mary maried her brother-in-law Clopas, this might actually be cited as support for Jesus' virgin birth!

Admittedly, all this is highly speculative.  One difficulty with this theory is its implicatin that Mary and Mary Magdalene are sisters.  It is unlikely that two sisters would bear the same name.   But this difficulty is not insuperable.   There is evidence of siblings having the same name in compound names.   Mary Magdalene might have been known as "Magdalene" (so Luke 8:2--"Mary the one called Magdalene").  Interestingly, Luke 8:1-3 identifies Magdalene as one of a group of women who supported Jesus' financially during His ministry.

I also remembered something else I read.  It was Edgar Cayce in The Sleeping Profit that stated he saw Jesus during one of his sessions. He described Jesus as somewhat wealthy, and well versed in Buddhism and saw him sporting a "very long fingernale on his baby finger" which was the Tibetian (Chinese) display of nobelity and wealth.

I think that Don is a true seeker.  His self reported use of the hemi sync CDs (which were formulated by the very man he half-ridicules), his analysis of NDEs and mediums, speak of a soul who is not bent on merely preaching to others, but of exploring and learning himself.

M

Interesting Bets,

I don't think anyone knows what to make of that, but then you have the book of Mormon in the United States, which makes some pretty outrageous conclusions of Jesus visiting North America....none of which really makes sense.  Yet there are quite a lot of Mormons out there.

Belief is a strange thing. Truth is another animal.  Some will say, on this board that there is no such thing as truth. I understand their arguments regarding it, but thus far, I don't yet accept that into my belief system.  In an objective way, either Jesus died on the cross as most believe or he didn't.  Most sources document that he did.  Whether or not the tribe in India or the Mormons have any claim to him, is far fetched at best.


M

Hello all,
I think the theory of Mary Magdalene being Jesus aunt is quite interesting.
But if we were to consider that, would we still be right to believe what the bible tells us about her?
Was or wasn't she a prostitute? Did she leave her bad ways to follow Jesus after he saved her from being stoned to death?
And last but not least, when they tell Jesus about her as she was about to be stoned, it would appear that she was a total stranger to him. Did they purpousefully make it look like that to not make Jesus the nephew of a prostitute?

Peace.

S.C.

Don--- I am currently reading "secrets of the Code" by Dan Burstein.  I am only on page 41 and he has given five interpertitations of Mary Magdalene. No one can agree. And, if the Bible WAS such an accurate account of the life of Jesus, why then are there so many different writings/interpertations of the holy book? 
Nothing is set in stone: Stone also disintegrates and becomes sand. Sand turns to dust. Dust scatters with the winds. Wind is felt and heard, but not seen. (get my drift---LOL)
It is what WE make it.
Love and Light--- cat

Quote:

Thank you for that Berserk. Your explanation makes so much sense to me.
Though we might never know if Mary Magdalene was indeed Jesus aunt,  I don't believe she was Jesus wife either.
Besides all the prejudices that his immaculate conception would have brought him, I think he had a different agenda on this planet. I believe He took a human body but He was above most earthly needs. Having a family life would have been completely irrelevant to him. 
I attended a catholic school since the age of 4 and was always force fed their interpretation of the truth without any reasoning. No wonder I lost interest quite soon and Religion class only meant to me boredom and a huge headache (literally). I was so put off the subject that when anyone would mention Jesus, God, The Virgin Mary or the BIble my interest level dropped below zero and i'd make my excuses to run a mile. I feel they delayed my spiritual awakening and I wasted many years thinking Jesus was boring and associating him with a headache. ::)
I suspect things would have been different had I attended your lectures instead.
Thank you again. :)

Peace.

S.C.

Sunrise--They way I was brought up: God and Jesus were vengful and I was to fear them. It was difficult for my to understand how Jesus could love the children when they gathered around him, because the priest and nuns told us that those children were good and didn't sin and there reward we being able to sit next to Jesus.
My catholisim was nothing but putting fear into me. I feared my father and other men. It took me many years after I was married and had children of my own that I finally stopped fearing the male figure. However, that didn't just go away. It took years for my to figure that Jesus and God were loving beings . To this day, my mother and mother-in-law still view God and Jesus as vengeful. The HAVE to go to church, obey the church laws, etc. I care not if Jesuse, the half human, half God (as I was taught) was married or not. My father was a Godly man and he was married.  Most Buddah's were not married (and also were mainly men). As long as Jesus judges me for my merits and is not vengeful, that's fine with me if he stayed celibate. I would prefer that in some lifetime he expierenced marraige. I believe I correct in quoting: I have come many times before, but you did not recognize me.

Elysiumfire

"The suggestion that Mary might have been Jesus' aunt, although interesting, is not possible, as none of the Mary's (3 in all) were NOT blood-related to Jesus' mother or even Joseph."
_________________________

This sentence is self-contradiictory.  I think what you mean to say is that none of the Marys were blood-related to Jesus' mother or Joseph.  if so, you are simply being dogmatic and ignoring my argument from the Greek text that demonstates the possibility of Mary Magdalene being the sister  of Jesus' mother.  

"Magdalene is also identified with one Mary of Bethany - the sister of Martha, and of Lazarus whom the Christ healed and resurrected."
______________________________________

Wrongly so.  Martha's sister is from Bethany, 2 miles east of Jersualem.  Mary Magdalene is named after her village, Magdala (or Migdal) in Galilee near Tiberias.  Magdala and Bethany are about 65 miles apart.  

"Thirdly, Magdalene is also identified with the 'woman sinner', whom in the 3rd and 4th centuries was considered as being 'unchaste' by the Church Fathers of those times."
_______________________________

You seem to miss the point.   This "woman sinner" is the prostitute in Luke 7:36-50.  I repeat: she is not named and no one knows her name!  Later tradition commonly assigns false names to unknown biblical figures.  

"Some scholars view Magdalene as the unidentified 'beloved disciple' whom wrote the 'fourth gospel' traditionally accepted as written by John."
________________________________________

Uh, the masculine pronoun is used to refer to this disciple!   There is no evidence that points to any woman, let along Mary Magdalene.   Besides, this disciple is never named in the Fourth Gospel.  The fact that Mary Madgalene is named a few times in itself excludes her candidacy.  But the Beloved Dsciple may not be the apostle John.   For example, every time the Beloved Disciple appears, the context provides clues that neatly apply to Jesus' brother James.   I have spent many years researching the identity of the Beloved Disciple.  No mainstream scholar seriously thinks that Mary Magdalene is a viable candidate.  

Further significant documents are the fragments of 'Gnostic', and the apocryphal 'Gospel of Mary Magdalene'
___________

The Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Philip are the source of the tradition that Mary and Jesus were lovers, though neither Gospel implies that they wre romantically involved!    But both Gospels are far too late to preserve historically genuine tradition.  The Gospel of Philip was likely written in "the 2nd half of the 3rd century ("The Nag Hammadi Library,"  p. 141).

Have you even read eeither Gnostic  Gospel?  Just consider this sample quote from the Gospel of Philip: "God is a man-eater" or this sample quote from he Gospel of Mary: "The Savior said, `There is no sin.'"  Duh! Do you really imagine that Jesus denied the reality of sin?
(e. g. The Lord's prayer: "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.")

"What the institutionalized Church is really hiding is the correctness of Jesus' message. That in itself is the 'Grail'. The 'Gnostic' texts of Nag Hamadi tend to support his message more sucinctly than the traditionally accepted texts as canonised by the Church leaders at the Council of Nicea in 325AD."
_______________________________________

In typical New age fashion, you are being dogmatic about a subject about which you are vitually illiterate.  As I've repeatedly demonstrated, our New Testament Gospels all stem from the first century and can be confidently identified with eyewitness testimony.  The Nag Hammadi library is very late and historically worthless when it comes to correcting the traditional picture of Jesus' life and teaching.

You are spouting the standard misinformed New Age drivel about Nicea.  Nicea did not even take up the issue the canon of Scripture.   The contary assertion is as ignorant as the absurd freqent New Age claim that Nicea removed the  teaching of reincarnation from the Bible.   In fact, only regional councils like the Council of Laodicea (363 AD), Hippo (393), and Carthage (397) touched on the issue of the New Testament canon. 

"This Council, instituted by Constantine, was when the 'split' occurred and sent Christianity down a path that alienated Jesus' 'true' message."
______________________________________

More New Age nonsense!  You  need to study what reputable historians can prove about canonical history  (e.g Hans van Campenhausen, "The Formation of the Christian Bible").   Have you even studied the criteria of canonicity?  The accepted New Testament texts had to be apostolic either in the sense that they were composed by an apostle or written in the apostolic age.  None of the Gnostic texts qualify on this score.  The accepted texts needed to have proven their spiritual relevance to Christian churches from earlist times and needed to be "catholic" (a word meaning "universal") in the sense that they were relevant to the church at large.  The Nag Hamadi library was never mainstream.  There is not even clear evidence of Christian Gnosticism before the 2nd century.  None of the Nag Hamadi documents are first century texts.

Don

P.S. I just received an E-mail from a woman who has now abandoned this site because of the double-standard displayed by the censuring of Craig.   Posters here often make vicious comments about the Bible and Christianity with impunity.  One poster slandered women without censure.  The hypocrisy and historical illiteracy of the New Age ghetto is breath-taking.  I make no apology for responding to this with blunt rhetoric.   New Agers need a mirror that allows them to learn how it feels to be treated as they treat others.  By their silence at religious bigotry they convey tacit approval, whether they approve or not.  Besides, my rhetoric is always addressed to significant issues.

My real concern is this site's myopia in the face of (1) powerful evidence against Moen-Monroe claims from masters like Swedenborg and from NDEs which refute the patient's prior belief in reincarnation and (2) evidence that demonstates the even the best of alleged channeled contacts with the dead is better explained as ESP.   Do I really need to repeat this evidence to finally entice a head-on response?    

Don

 

First off,

I don't see why Don, when you disagree, with someone, you have to lump everyone into the "new age ghetto."  Personally, I do not think you should be banned for your sharp rhetoric, since your knowledge lends useful information to the forum.

If you had done your point/counterpoint with Elysium, without any of the "duhs,"or other signs of anger, your case would, in my mind have been a sound one.  Your knowledge is extensive.

There is merit to saying that gospels and texts written more than one century after Christ's passing are less reputable sources than other's to verify accuracy. 

However Christ's message for love and service to others is what matters; the place of Mary Magdalene is interesting, but will likely not be settled by debate alone. 

To all you who would consider censure for Don, I still say; "lighten up." A debate is a debate.  This site does not defend New Age, nor classify itself as such. 

If attacks are not made against a specific person, in a derogatory manner, I would not myself censure Don were I to moderate.  However, Don, your scholarly points, minus the anger and new age taunts would go over even better.  Many people, myself included read your input quite carefully.

Matthew

Elysiumfire

The New Age thought police (in this case, Kathy) have ratted me out to the moderator.  So I'd better formulate my reply in a hurry before censure.  Ha!  

You said: "The suggestion that Mary might have been Jesus' aunt...is not possible, as NONE of the Mary's (3 in all) were NOT blood-related to Jesus' mother or even Joseph."  
____________________________

You might reread your wording.  A sentence with the structure "No S are not P" is logically equivalent to "All S are P."  So as worded, your sentence is equivalent to "All of the Mary's were blood related to Jesus' mother or even Joseph."  I know that was not your intended meaning, but it is self-contradictory as presently worded.  

You wrongly imply that my statement is self-contradictory:

"The Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Philip are the source of the tradition that Mary and Jesus were lovers, though neither Gospel implies that they were romantically involved!"  

Can't you see a distinction between Platonic and romantic love?   No contradiction here.   The Gospel of Philip claims that Jesus' used to kiss Mary on the [blank].  There is a hole in the manuscript; so nothing romantic need to read into this kiss. Besides, Platonic kissing was an early Christian  custom: e. g. "Greet each other with a holy kiss (1 Corinthians 16:20)."

You actually imagine that Jesus denied the reality of sin.  Don't you realize that all 4 New Testament Gospels contain many references to the need to confess sin, to repent from sin, the danger in dying in sin, and the unpardonable sin?  And you take the word of a bizarre 2nd century Gnostic Gospel beyond the the age of valid oral tradition over the converging witness of 4 first century Gospels which can be connected with eyewitness testimony?  It's one thing for you to embrace the New Age denial of sin and evil, but to claim support for this claim from the historical Jesus--that's truly amazing!

"Regarding Nicea. I am not wrong."
______________________________

OK, what is your specific evidence for the Nicene discussion of the shape of the New Testament canon?  And how can you refute the criteria of canonicity I identified that establish our canonical texts and exclude the much later Gnostic texts, none of which can be traced to the apostolic age?  Read a basic scholarly book on the canon like Hans Von Campenhausen's "The Formation of the Christian Bible."  Then we'll have something to discuss.  

Don

P.S. Notice how my replies though admittedly blunt, always address the point at issue, wheras Marilyn's personal attacks, so typical of this site's New Agers,  are purely ad hominem.  This distinction between my posts and theirs was recently pointed out to me in a PM.

Hi Don,

I thankyou for your more reasoned response. Unfortunately, work intrudes at the present moment, so I'll have to reply later.

I have no problem with 'directness' in a reply to my posts, as long as it doesn't wander off into 'personal space'. I'm sorry that you seem to have received the attention of a moderator,  though I do understand the sentiment of others as to why you have. I am quite capable of tendering my own defence - some replies might take a little longer to appear, and may be less than brief, but if we both defend our positions (and in the interim be ready to adapt them upon the realisation that one or both of us might be in error) as and best we can, then I see no reason why the debate cannot be vibrant.

I may not be doctorate, but I'm no slouch either! Will reply later.

Regards

Quote:


Hello Don,

Bruce asked you to abide by the posting guidelines.  You intentionally decided to test the water in his absence.  This shows the utmost disrespect to Bruce and that is the bottom line.  Personally I love reading most of what you write as you very well know.  You do have the ability to debate without violating posting guidelines; you simply are choosing to show disrespect to Bruce and other people that populate this website. 

The thread where Bruce spoke to you is located here on pages 2 and 3 just incase you forgot what he said, but I doubt that since it was only a month ago:

http://www.afterlife-knowledge.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=anounc;action=dis...

I asked you to edit the following out of respect for Bruce.  You chose to “tone down” your post a little, however you also chose to continue your power struggle with Bruce.  You did this behind his back, knowing full well that he is out of the country.

Quote:


I also thanked you for editing the above and asked you to do a little more editing on the following.  You chose not to do this.  Out of rebellion perhaps?

Quote:


Then a poster with whom you were having a previously respectful conversation asks you a question and you chose to “bully” her in your response.

Quote:


And then you continue to make comments like the following in subsequent posts in which you talk down to posters.  I could probably name at least a hundred people that have left this site because of the way you have treated them.

Quote:


Don, debate is one thing, being outright disrespectful to people is abuse.  If people don’t speak up, the abuse will continue because the abuser is struggling for power.  The abuser has a fear of powerlessness and seeks to puff him or her self up by taking power from someone else.  That is not debate Don and it is against this website's posting guidelines whether you see it that way or not.

Your future on this site is Bruce's decision and the result of that decision is your own doing.  You and you alone are responsible for whatever happens.

I wish you well and hope you find what you are looking for.

Kathy

OK, two things. Don, not everyone that questions religion is " new age". To lump everyone not of your views together isn't fair.
Kathy, I believe that you too have become a "bully" I feel that you are taking things waaay too personally. By pointing everything out you seem to be overly focused on what Don is posting. Don't you have anything else to do?

To Don, about sin.

If a person truly wants to find out what unconditional love is, they'll need to grow beyond the concept of sin.

Why do some people do bad things, while others don't?

If it is because they were created less good than others, you can hardly blame them.

If their life experiences conditioned them to be negative minded, for example an abused and unloved child, you can hardly blame them.

Some people might argue that despite what people are exposed to they still have complete freedom to choose the right way, as if supreme wisdom and love is imediately available to them.

Eventhough supreme love and wisdom are always there, sometimes, for various reasons,  people get separated from it and it often takes them time to get back to the point where they can tune into love and wisdom.

When I see people who do terrible things I don't feel judgment towards them.  Rather, I feel fortunate that I don't have go through the difficulty they're going to have to go through before they become free enough to find true wisdom, happiness, peace and love.

If I can feel nonjugmental towards people, then certainly God and Jesus who are more wise and loving than me, can be nonjudgmental towards them. To an extent where they would never think of people as sinners that ought be damned, as opposed to helped.

We aren't really separate from each other.  Therefore, in a deeper sense when somebody else does something considered negative, we all do something negative. The spirit of brotherhood is to help them see the error of their ways, not to judge and condem them, and lable them as sinners.

Consider a brand new baby. Does a baby think to itself, "Gee, how can I become a terrible person?" and then become one. Or is this unfortunately how some lives turn out?

If it were so easy to "not" become a person who does negative things, there wouldn't be so many people who do negative things.

The true spirit of love and wisdom is to understand that some Souls get lost for a while, and need time and help so that eventually all souls can find their way to true happiness and love.

If you're going to set things up so that people have to deal with the opposites of good and bad, then you have to expect that some people are going to get lost for a while. The fact of how alot of people do get lost proves that this is so.

Hi Don,

Your attempt to presume that I require syntatic tutoring from you in order to make my self clear and understandable makes me smile. I suppose if I substitute 'are' for 'were' that would less offend your tender academic mind?
Please, I was not writing a thesis there. My language and structure was purely colloquial, and served to place emphasis upon the point I made.
The logical equivalence of the structural syntax of the separate sentences you formulate - 'no S are P' and 'all S are P' posit unequal meanings. The first denies the second (or vice versa).
However, the structure used for the original sentence I wrote offered no other alternative meaning than that that was intended for it to convey. It simply posited the improbability of Mary Magdalene being Jesus' aunt, and for economy, the use of the parenthesis was to set up the identification (in the paragraph following) of the three females disparate sources have identified as Mary Magadalene. It may have been unsound structurally, but the contradiction was resolved in the next paragraph. The intended meaning was successfully conveyed. Your response with belittlement was truly academic and redundant.

Regarding your own self-contradictory statement, and whereas mine own resolves itself, yours does not. The meaning you intended to convey - 'platonic' as opposed to 'romantic' - is not successfully conveyed. You used the term 'lovers' not 'friends', and thus by any stretch of one's imagination, 'lovers' always carries the meaning of romance, not simply friendship. Thus your meaning is self-contradictory, even if the sentence is sound structurally.

Regarding the issue of sin. I maintain my stance. Sin has no existential reality of its own. It is relationally equal with man in the same terms as his history, they both arise out of his actions, out of what he does, how he behaves. Becoming cognizant of this, is the beginning of accepting one's self-responsibility for one's actions: you cannot repent until you do this.
The dogma and doctrine of institutionalised religion would have us believe that the Devil would tempt us into sin, and in sinning, and in being unrepentant, God would condemn us to eternal hell-fire and dammnation.
Fortunately, the reports from the experients of the NDE deny that this is so. Their emphasis for repentance is on 'self', and that it is not God that condemns us, but we ourselves, by not accepting self-responsibility for our own actions. This echoes quite clearly what Jesus is said to have taught as I have highlighted. Using the devil as the scapegoat for sin, is merely the non-acceptance of self-responsibility.

Regarding Nicea: the intimation is that the various disparate Christian sects holding to their own traditionally-held beliefs prior to Nicea, had to have discussed the issue of scripture prior to the convening. Nicea was to set up a universally-acceptable creed, that in itself requires a discussion on the 'interpretation' of scripture as held by the disparate groups. Most of the discussion would have taken place prior to Nicea, and associations would have been formed; it was almost a political process. Nicea was in total indifference to Jesus' adjuration that no other law be set upon His teachings than those He gave. The threat of being 'put to the sword', perhaps, held part of the persuasion in forgetting His adjuration?

Regarding the alleged personal attacks upon you...perhaps, you bring it upon yourself, although, that does not make it right. We can add pride to your (academic) ego, you sinful person, you!

Regards Don

Elysiumfire,

You have the misfortune of engaging a former Teaching Fellow in symbolic logic in dialogue, though logic was not my primary field.   The syntactical schematization in question was often stressed in our logic courses!  Of course, symbolic logic is not very practical.  So when I got a rare chance to reproduce such trivial quibbles, I couldn't resist.  

"lover": "a person who loves" (so Webster)!  
OK, I admit that "friend" would have been more clear.

Your own view of sin is a separate issue.  On this site, I have often engaged in debate on attempts to deny the good vs. evil polarity.   The important point here is that the historical Jesus believed in the reality of sin.

The scholarly consensus agrees that the shape of the New Testament canon was never discussed at Nicea or any early ecumenical council.  The issue was only debated in regional conferences.  I eagerly await your attempt to refute this consensus.  

The Bible and the early church imply that God's love never permanently abandons anyone after death.  Hell is self-chosen.  Universal salvation always remains a theoretical possibility, depending on the choices of those trapped in hellish planes.  Niether the Greek nor the Hebrew terms translated "etermal" mean that!   They mean "an indefinitely long period."  In fact, early Christianity is the literary origin of the doctrine of soul retrievals from lower planes.  I have created long threads on this board defending all these claims in great detail.

Don

forgive me for butting in...Elysiumfire but I must make comment that i have just met you. I hope you will not be embarrassed that I say your response to Don is elequently worded..for I myself have never been able to engage him at all.

the way you talk makes me want to throw my book away and begin all over....

oh please god, no more editing. I see we are in off topic thread..good. I can therefore say whatever I want.

AND THE GRAND ADVENTURE JUST KEEPS GOING!!! YEEEAAAAA!!!!!

Beserk you are like a Zealtor on a quest!

  Ya know, i happen to believe in aliens collecting jokes from our little ole system, or in advanced technology from a lost civilization.

  I take Monroe quite literally on these.   And there are other issues i disagree with Don about, and i rarely agree with his particular personal style, but at least Don isn't constantly saying how full of PUL he is, and then doing the very opposite of what p.U.l is.

  This is one of the things i like and respect about Spitfire, was his lack of hypocrisy.  Another person i didn't always agree with, and thought their people skills lacked, and our beliefs systems were quite different.

Alysia wrote, [quote]I suspect our esteemed patron Don enjoys drawing a crowd, especially when the administrator of this board is absent. and so I have no further comments and find this "off topic" thread to be appropriately named; off topic.

I am astounded that over the years Don's comments, scuse me, hello Don? your comments, questions, debates remain the same issues. is there a reason for this non-change? I am referring to Monroe's experience with joke collecting aliens. has it ever occured to you Don, that aliens might not know what a sense of humor is? That they might want to study humans for our emotions and differences? Surely you don't think aliens are going to be just like humans. I already know your own sense of humor is nearly absent, unless you are chuckling away to yourself right now as you have indeed a knack for stirring up things. too bad you can not stir up in a positive and heart warming way instead of pummeling others with your clever wit and perhaps less than sincere putdowns.

Kathy, I saw nothing wrong with your post to Don and you do not bully. you inform. and I might add much better than myself but I believe you waste your time and energy with Don.
I'm sorry, I believe any who talk with Don waste their time, because he's only going to find your weakness and then get you where it hurts the most. He's not here to be of service to you although he may occassionally toss you a generous tidbit and you will think he is kind. but don't take my word for it. find out for yourself. of course many love

even in the wrong of wrongs there is the truth. this is not for fancy saying, it is a fact when you are able to get to the deepest level in all that wrong.
so...very related..When PUL and oneness is mentioned along, i would hesitate to say what somebody feels is his/her responsility...or is gonna be a contradiction. if there is a man crying in a lonely desert in africa, it is likely that i personally am responsible of it in a way.this is not a random example. something is happening there? what is happening in africa? any news, thoughts?  one night right before sleep it almost seem obligatory that i must go to africa. i still wish it wasnt a literal obligation that i sont have to travel there?
and no..i true seeker would come to understand sooner or later that finding truth can not be related with letting your mind and soul be burried under the centuries old information. but well yes:), "how soon" would classify one as a a true skeer? i definetly do not know.

Hi P A
When you say
'ignorance is the key word i suppose'
you bring out the pun meanings of the word and cause us to face the 2 meanings. Seeing both sides of puns together are supposed to reveal the true reality.
In your example we know to be our brothers' keeper but are ignorant of all the factors that led to him bleeding.   If we ignore those factors we are left with the only true meaning--our actions must be based upon love.
I don't know what religion or philosphy pun wisdom comes from---Buddhism maybe? Have you heard?
bets