FEATURED MEMBER ARTICLE: 1 Corth 14:29-36, a closer look. By lilpixieofterror

[lilpixieofterror]

I did go back and read the article, briefly, last week - after the last few posts made your thread. It still looked/looks to me that you were trying to water down Paul's instruction.

In other words

"I don't have anything of substance, so let me rant and whine for awhile and fill in some space fillers."

Anytime you want, you're welcome to show that I watered down anything, so far... nothing to show it yet.

You were doing so by using (or quoting) condescending tones about Paul and Christ.

My tones are condescending now? What you mean is that, "You are attacking something I believe in, so let me read emotions in that are not there so I can feel better about it." Sorry dear, but this is me being condescending to you, my article isn't condescending to Paul or Jesus, but go ahead... make up whatever you want to feel better about yourself.

Whether you wrote them yourself, or whether they were just tones from an article, the way that they were presented in this thread was as if to apply the femenist movement's tests to the Bible (particularly, Christ and Paul). We (men included) are not to test God, only try the spirits against the Word.

Oh? More assertions and nothing yet to prove me wrong, huh? Come on now... show me in error.. I'm waiting, but it seems you can't do that because you don't know what you're talking about. So you rant in place of arguments. It's pretty funny that some extremist atheist say I can't be a feminist for being anti abortion and for family values, but fundy Christians say I'm a feminist. I do wish you people could make up your mind about what I am. Now are you going to prove your assertions or just rant in place of arguments?

Clearly, when Christ was tempted on the mount he stated as much to Satan, that God is not to be tested. So, to even consider creating a thread that questions the character of Christ himself as being anti-woman, and to not immediately denounce the tone, it is the perfect example why God led Paul to disallow women teaching/usurping authority over men with the scriptures.

I see you're too dumb to notice that I'm not testing Christ at all, but peculator interpretations of the text. Go ahead though, throw out irrelevant arguments and just show everybody how much of a moron you are. And just so you are aware, almost all of my source work was from a male, not a female. So you might want to go tell your fellow men that they are usurping authority for telling women that they don't have to listen to your crap you spill out. Another one of your arguments comes crashing down, but it seems you still are not done heaping shame upon yourself.

So, now do you understand ME better? The Bible says to BOLDLY proclaim the gospel of Christ. You were not bold, at least not for Christ's unadulterated Word.

I understand perfectly. You're an idiot who doesn't understand my article and is too dumb to figure out that I'm attacking an interpretation and not Christ. Go ahead, keep pretending your interpretation is the default and to dare to question it means you are questioning Christ and usurping authority of men. I think next time I'll just turn on the laugh track and let it play with each and every stupid statement you make.

I would be really easily tempted to say, at this point, "It's not what you said; it's what you didn't say," but that would imply that I accept you as a teacher of the Gospel. If you learn to post and teach Christ's unadulterated message, then you'll be useful to teach women and children, or even to prophesy, if God gives you the gift. It is obvious that you have something driving you to want to teach something somewhere...

More of this same strawman that falls out of your mouth, huh? You can't prove me wrong, so take a new approach that can the translated as, "WAAAA!!!! My position is the true gospel and if you dare challenge it, you are disobeying scripture!!! " Isn't that so much more accurate? Now please prove that your position is the true interpretation of the scriptures and mine isn't or you can just drop this idiotic charge that I'm 'altering the message'.

One quick look and I'm done. Even Harvard College uses provocation to open minds. I am aware of that, but they do not test the Words of Christ or the apostles. They ask the students, "Can God make a rock that He can't pick up?" That question is not a shot at God; it's a shot at the limitation of human wisdom, a shot that ultimately supports Bible's teaching. Now, if I am wrong about that, well, then at least I am just that much more right to not vote for Obama (a Harvard graduate)...

More ranting and no answer to my article, just "WAAAA! My position is the true Gospel and since you dare challenge it, you are attacking God! WAAAA WAAA WAA!" I do love how this game works though, just call your view the view that Christ had and anybody who dares challenge it, accuse them of attacking God. Sorry, I'm smarter than that and I'm not falling for it, you can either show your view is the view that Paul and Jesus had, or just withdraw your accusations. My bet is you can't show it, so you'll rant some more to make up for your total lack of answers.

Oops, sorry... one more thing. Don't know where it is, but somewhere in the Old Testament the women had to lead the military in battle. That's not using scripture to usurp authority, that's just being a hootin' of a woman! It is truly sad that so many feminists have convinced our ladies that a woman is being mistreated who accepts her role as it is laid out in God's Word (Proverbs 31). God loves women (he just has to!)...

Perhaps you can actually quote where I said or implied anything you think I am? Can't, can you? Nope, so what do you do? Make assertions without evidence. Whine that I don't agree with you. State your position is default and anybody who disagrees is 'usurping authority'. Better not vote in the election because if we have a new leader, isn't that usurping authority? Do actually try to answer a word I said and not rant in your next post, ok?

[NathanDavid]

Lill Miss Terror (not), I'm not going to bother reading your garbage. I saw enough of your folly in the first paragraph of the original post. Your name alone is condescending. It shows that you have no self respect and no imagination. You just want attention. Your hostility is exactly why you have no business teaching anything but how to stir a toilet. Go and march with your gay rights groups. I know what's got you riled all of the sudden. Obama's lipstick on a pig scared you; it scored your ideology about your new found hero! Now you hate him too, and Palin is too decent for someone like you to vote for... at least she knows her place!

[NathanDavid]

I've given this thread one last look, and it still looks to be disputing the depths of what Paul taught. Paul made himself abundantly clear about women teachers. He even illustrated by the fact that God created man first. Here's meat: 2 Corinthians 3:12-18 and 2 Corinthians 4:2-3

If I wuz you, Lil' Ms. Terror, I'd take my eyes off that air show over Iraq. All that "I'd awl a tree" makes that Bible you'ra holdin' look like... well, lipstick on a pig! Hebrews 6:6

Anna' know'd 't were my last post
To the one who'd been heart-cut the most
The god of rhetorical waste
Who's folly she'd been known two'a faced
Stilla' know'd 't were my time to head out
Though, the garbage 'twas passed in by Trout
't were surely to confuse some young roe
Butta' just had to boldly, BOLDLY GO!



('D like to hear Fred Thompson read it aloud!...)

[lilpixieofterror]

I've given this thread one last look, and it still looks to be disputing the depths of what Paul taught.

Translation: "My view is absolute truth and anybody who dares to disagree with me must be disputing what Paul taught, that is the only logical answer."

Still no rebuttal to my words. Still no evidence to support your ideas. Still nothing by ranting and raving and pretend that is an argument.

Paul made himself abundantly clear about women teachers. He even illustrated by the fact that God created man first. Here's meat: 2 Corinthians 3:12-18 and 2 Corinthians 4:2-3

How in the world you think 2 Corinthians 3:12-18 or 2 Corinthians 4:2-3 relates to this issue, I have no idea, but from what I see yet again it's "WAAAA!!!! I'm right and you're wrong because my view is the default and anybody who challanges is disputing God!" See, isn't that so much more accurate than mentally throwing up verses and thinking that is a valid argument? Now again, please prove that your view is Paul's origional view and answer my article. Stop whining that your view is default and start proving it is. I'm waiting....

If I wuz you, Lil' Ms. Terror, I'd take my eyes off that air show over Iraq. All that "I'd awl a tree" makes that Bible you'ra holdin' look like... well, lipstick on a pig! Hebrews 6:6

Insults over arguments, eh? I see when you can't answer an argument because it's too hard for you, just throw up Bible verses and pretend that is an answer.

Anna' know'd 't were my last post
To the one who'd been heart-cut the most
The god of rhetorical waste
Who's folly she'd been known two'a faced
Stilla' know'd 't were my time to head out
Though, the garbage 'twas passed in by Trout
't were surely to confuse some young roe
Butta' just had to boldly, BOLDLY GO!

More insults, zero arguments. Prove me wrong... I'm still waiting...

('D like to hear Fred Thompson read it aloud!...)

Do you actually have an argument or is ranting the only argument you can produce?

[John Gardner]

In rereading this thread, in which lilpixie's initial points were hardly seriously touched, let alone rebutted, I'm reminded why I resolved to eschew the "liberal" versus "conservative" tags in Bible discourse.

It's not just an issue of imprecision. I know what the tags are generally supposed to evoke. (Ditto "Red states"/"Blue states".) It's an issue of underlying meaning. Orwell had it right in "Politics and the English Language" - when we adopt party-line terminology, we lose the ability to communicate effectively outside our parties.

Take women teaching in church - a fine example! We have the Pauline statements in 1 Cor. 14, which - like all Scripture -- can be taken without context and without reference to the frequent mentions of women in authority elsewhere in NT. What makes it more "conservative" to view Paul's statements this way? Could it possibly be the implicit "fit" between a "no women teachers rule" (whether or not Paul stated this "rule") and a rejection of 20/21st C. party-line "liberal" feminism? If so, this is a reactionary political exegesis, it is not Bible scholarship at all.

Do I think that kicking out the liberal-versus-conservative tags will make exegesis a happier or gentler place? Not on your gender inflected life. But at least it might pull Bible discourse somewhat out of the CNN/Election Year orbit and into a dialogue about Yeshua and His church.

Shalom.

[Mjornir]

your article is one of constant misconception.
old world religion wanted power to stay under male dominancy,void of female control.
paul writes what is allowed as man's law, since jesus did not come here to upsurp that authority, but he did rival it from time to time...
our ideas that males should dominate is the equivalent of the idea that incest ( which was a common practice within the confines of royalty) is against God.
it should be noted (genisis) that God created incest when He took a rib and flesh of adam and made a woman(We now call this DNA cloning) which effectively makes eve adam's twin sister...

so even though the bible has a verse or two that alone would insist your idea to be correct, it is hereby a wrong idea in God's eyes, after all, we are all elihims, and elihims in spirit form have no sex per say.
if jesus meant for woman to remain silent, mary would not be the first to witness his ressurection and told to tell others...
several johns were credited as having wrote the books of the johns, revelation-john the apostle in exile as an old man near 95 ad, the other three books were all written apparently after the murders of the disiples of jesus except for john the apostle who again was in exile, why? because he knew what was happening to the others...

however, mary magdalene was untouched, could it be because jesus stood up for her instead of letting her be stoned? imagine if you will, in perfect, fluent greek, the books of john were penned, but no greek speaking disciple was alive at the time to write, but if mary did write these books, who would go against her with the fear of God rising from the dead and ascending, might come back for vengence if they touched mary?

one more note...
constantine was a pagan, not a christian. he legalized christianity in fear that because we were growing in more numbers, that a possible revolt was eminant in which he would lose.

anyways, this is something to think about....

[Mjornir]

heck with what paul taught... why dont you focus more on what Jesus taught...
as far as man is concern, you need to open your bible again for here i give you a quick lesson....
God, on the sixth day create male AND female, on the seventh day, God RESTED....
note that this is the 6th day and God saw it as good(final)...
now man is on the scene during 6th day (1000 yrs.), then God rests on the 7th day (1000 yrs.)...
now exists MANkind for 2000 years, and yes, we already screwed up...
God on the 8th day (1st day of the 2nd week) seeing what a bunch of idiots we are, then makes Adam (Adam is not this individual's name, but the name of his species-hence: Adam is the first ADAM, and Jesus is the last ADAM of ADAMkind) a tiller for there was none.
think real quick-why did God tell Seth and HIS people not to mingle with man at the bottom of the mountain?

[Mjornir]

Translation: "My view is absolute truth and anybody who dares to disagree with me must be disputing what Paul taught, that is the only logical answer."

Still no rebuttal to my words. Still no evidence to support your ideas. Still nothing by ranting and raving and pretend that is an argument.



How in the world you think 2 Corinthians 3:12-18 or 2 Corinthians 4:2-3 relates to this issue, I have no idea, but from what I see yet again it's "WAAAA!!!! I'm right and you're wrong because my view is the default and anybody who challanges is disputing God!" See, isn't that so much more accurate than mentally throwing up verses and thinking that is a valid argument? Now again, please prove that your view is Paul's origional view and answer my article. Stop whining that your view is default and start proving it is. I'm waiting....



Insults over arguments, eh? I see when you can't answer an argument because it's too hard for you, just throw up Bible verses and pretend that is an answer.



More insults, zero arguments. Prove me wrong... I'm still waiting...



Do you actually have an argument or is ranting the only argument you can produce?

Hello, this is a wake-up call... who is the left nutted idiot that thinks woman have no voice? verily-verily i tell you that you need to focus on what Jesus SAYS, not what paul says...

[lilpixieofterror]

your article is one of constant misconception.
old world religion wanted power to stay under male dominancy,void of female control.

And your source for this is what? The fact you like it so therefore it's true? Sorry honey, but this is just an assertion without evidence. If you actually read the Bible (I know it would be hard to do that) women were in positions of authority in both the OT and the NT. Sorry, but you loose on this point, but keep pretending you're an expert because it's obvious you're not.

paul writes what is allowed as man's law, since jesus did not come here to upsurp that authority, but he did rival it from time to time...

And can you give the verse that supports that?

our ideas that males should dominate is the equivalent of the idea that incest ( which was a common practice within the confines of royalty) is against God.

Source please.

it should be noted (genisis) that God created incest when He took a rib and flesh of adam and made a woman(We now call this DNA cloning) which effectively makes eve adam's twin sister...

Wow, that wins you a screwball award. It's kind of hard for them to be clones when males and females have different sex chromosomes (Men have XY and women have XX). So how they can be twins when genetics says it's impossible for identical twins to be a male and female, I have no idea (been getting your genetics from cartoons I see). Oh well, keep making a fool of yourself, doing a good job of it so far.

so even though the bible has a verse or two that alone would insist your idea to be correct, it is hereby a wrong idea in God's eyes, after all, we are all elihims, and elihims in spirit form have no sex per say.

What this has to do with my article, I have no idea.

if jesus meant for woman to remain silent, mary would not be the first to witness his ressurection and told to tell others...

Woosh! The point made as it went over your head. Did you actually read my article or are you ranting?

several johns were credited as having wrote the books of the johns, revelation-john the apostle in exile as an old man near 95 ad, the other three books were all written apparently after the murders of the disiples of jesus except for john the apostle who again was in exile, why? because he knew what was happening to the others...

And this has what to do with my article?

however, mary magdalene was untouched, could it be because jesus stood up for her instead of letting her be stoned? imagine if you will, in perfect, fluent greek, the books of john were penned, but no greek speaking disciple was alive at the time to write, but if mary did write these books, who would go against her with the fear of God rising from the dead and ascending, might come back for vengence if they touched mary?

There is no evidence that Mary was a prostitute. Are you getting your information from outdated sources? Now what does this have to do with what I said? Nothing really, you're just ranting to rant.

one more note...
constantine was a pagan, not a christian. he legalized christianity in fear that because we were growing in more numbers, that a possible revolt was eminant in which he would lose.

Constantine was baptized as a Christian before his death. Do you have any proof he was a pagan or are you just making up things as you go along?

anyways, this is something to think about....

That you haven't got a clue what you're talking about and go off on endless tangents that have nothing to do with the article in question? You showed me one thing... you're an idiot that isn't worth much time bothering with. Now do you have a real response to my article or all you do have left is ranting?

Now let me answer your other rants posts:

heck with what paul taught... why dont you focus more on what Jesus taught...

Because the article is about rather or not Paul was really saying X and thus the entire focus of the article is on that one verse of 1 Corinthians.

as far as man is concern, you need to open your bible again for here i give you a quick lesson....
God, on the sixth day create male AND female, on the seventh day, God RESTED....
note that this is the 6th day and God saw it as good(final)...
now man is on the scene during 6th day (1000 yrs.), then God rests on the 7th day (1000 yrs.)...
now exists MANkind for 2000 years, and yes, we already screwed up...
God on the 8th day (1st day of the 2nd week) seeing what a bunch of idiots we are, then makes Adam (Adam is not this individual's name, but the name of his species-hence: Adam is the first ADAM, and Jesus is the last ADAM of ADAMkind) a tiller for there was none.
think real quick-why did God tell Seth and HIS people not to mingle with man at the bottom of the mountain?

What does this have to do with my article? This wins another screwball award. Good job!

Hello, this is a wake-up call... who is the left nutted idiot that thinks woman have no voice? verily-verily i tell you that you need to focus on what Jesus SAYS, not what paul says...

Are you an idiot that is incapable of reading my article? No where did I say a word about women having no voice. Do you have reading issues?

[Mjornir]

first, i never said that there were no woman of power
(that is you circumventing my QOUTE "RANTINGS"
UNQUOTE)...
PLEASE SHUT UP AND READ WHAT I SAID AGAIN...

I SAID...

however, mary magdalene was untouched, could it be
because jesus stood up for her instead of letting her
be stoned? imagine if you will, in perfect, fluent
greek, the books of john were penned, but no greek
speaking disciple was alive at the time to write, but
if mary did write these books, who would go against
her with the fear of God rising from the dead and
ascending, might come back for vengence if they
touched mary?


AND YOU SAID.....

There is no evidence that Mary was a prostitute. Are
you getting your information from outdated sources?
Now what does this have to do with what I said?
Nothing really, you're just ranting to rant.

Evidence from The Da Vinci Code:

“My dear child, it was not Mary Magdalene's royal
blood that concerned the Church so much as it was her
consorting with Christ, who also had royal blood. As
you know, the Book of Matthew tells us that Jesus was
of the House of David. A descendant of King Solomon
–King of the Jews. By marrying into the powerful
House of Benjamin, Jesus fused two royal bloodlines,
creating a potent political union with the potential
of making a legitimate claim to the throne and
restoring the line of kings as it was under Solomon.”
–Teabing (249)

“That's part of what the Crusades were about.
Gathering and destroying information. The threat Mary
Magdalene posed to the men of the early Church was
potentially ruinous. Not only was she the woman to
whom Jesus had assigned the task of founding the
Church, but she also had physical proof that the
Church's newly proclaimed deity had spawned a mortal
bloodline. The Church, in order to defend itself
against the Magdalene's power, perpetuated her image
as a whore and buried evidence of Christ's marriage to
her, thereby defusing any potential claims that Christ
had a surviving bloodline and was a mortal prophet.”
(254)

“…Mary Magdalene was pregnant at the time of the
crucifixion. For the safety of Christ's unborn child,
she had no choice but to flee the Holy Land. With the
Help of Jesus' trusted uncle Joseph of Arimathea, Mary
Magdalene secretly traveled to France, then known as
Gaul. There she found safe refuge in the Jewish
community. It was here in France that she gave birth
to a daughter. Her name was Sarah.” (255)

“Magdalene's and Sarah's lives were scrutinously
chronicled by their Jewish protectors. Remember that
Magdalene's child belonged to the lineage of Jewish
kings—David and Solomon. For this reason, the Jews in
France considered Magdalene sacred royalty and revered
her as the progenitor of the royal line of kings.”
(255)

“…Christ's line grew quietly under cover in France
until making a bold move in the fifth century, when it
intermarried with French royal blood and created a
lineage known as the Merovingian bloodline.” –Teabing
(257)
“With Dagobert's murder, the Merovingian, Sigisbert,
secretly escaped the attack and carried on the
lineage, which later included Godefroi de Bouillon-
founder of the Priory of Sion.” –Teabing (258)
“The modern Priory of Sion has a momentous duty.
Theirs is a threefold charge. The brotherhood must
protect the Sangreal documents. They must protect the
tomb of Mary Magdalene. And, of course, they must
nurture and protect the bloodline of Christ –those few
members of the royal Merovingian bloodline who have
survived into modern times.” –Teabing (258)
“Only two direct lines of Merovingians remain. Their
family names are Plantard and Saint-Clair. Both
families live in hiding, probably protected by the
Priory.” –Langdon (260)
The Origins of the Merovingian Line:
This site describes the origins of the Merovingian
bloodline as being from the Germanic tribe of the
Franks. Specifically, the Salian Franks who were
located at the most northern part of the area along
the Rhine River which the Franks occupied. The chief
of the Salian Franks, Merovich, is where the name
Merovingian originated. Merovich's son, Clovis is
known as the first king of the Merovingians.

The Knights Templar:
The Knights Templar presents evidence that supports
Brown's theory of the Merovingians being descendants
of Mary Magdalene and Jesus, specifically the ancestry
of the Frankish people that the Merovingians directly
descended from. Dr. Steven Edward Mizrach elaborates
on the conception of the first Merovingian king by
providing a theory of how the mother of Merovich was
actually impregnated by both King Chlodio and by a
"Quinotaur," an aquatic creature. While this theory
seems to be quite far-fetched to the educated reader,
it does provide a credible history for what happened
to the royal lineage.

I SAID...

one more note...
constantine was a pagan, not a christian. he legalized
christianity in fear that because we were growing in
more numbers, that a possible revolt was eminant in
which he would lose.

AND YOU SAID....

Constantine was baptized as a Christian before his
death. Do you have any proof he was a pagan or are you
just making up things as you go along?

TRY THIS...

Constantine I
2007 Schools Wikipedia Selection. Related subjects:
Historical figuresConstantine I
Emperor of the Roman Empire

Legend and Donation of Constantine
In later years, historical facts were clouded by
legend. It was considered inappropriate that
Constantine was baptized only on his death-bed and by
a bishop of questionable orthodoxy, and hence a legend
emerged that Pope Silvester I (314-335) had cured the
pagan Emperor from leprosy. According to this legend,
Constantine was baptized after that and donated
buildings to the Pope. In the 8th century, a document
called the " Donation of Constantine" first appeared,
in which the freshly converted Constantine hands the
temporal rule over Rome, Italy and the Occident to the
Pope. In the High Middle Ages, this document was used
and accepted as the basis for the Pope's temporal
power, though it was denounced as a forgery by Emperor
Otto III and lamented as the root of papal worldliness
by the poet Dante Alighieri. The 15th century
philologist Lorenzo Valla proved the document was
indeed a forgery

AND THIS...(PLEASE NOTE HOW PAGANISM IS "BETWEEN THE
LINES")

Constantine's iconography and ideology
Coins struck for emperors often reveal details of
their personal iconography. During the early part of
Constantine's rule, representations first of Mars and
then (from 310) of Apollo as Sun god consistently
appear on the reverse of the coinage. Mars had been
associated with the Tetrarchy, and Constantine's use
of this symbolism served to emphasize the legitimacy
of his rule. After his breach with his father's old
colleague Maximian in 309–310, Constantine began to
claim legitimate descent from the 3rd century emperor
Marcus Aurelius Claudius Gothicus, the hero of the
Battle of Naissus (September, 268). The Augustan
History of the 4th century reports Constantine's
paternal grandmother Claudia to be a daughter of
Crispus, Crispus being a reported brother of both
Claudius II and Quintillus. Historians however suspect
this account to be a genealogical fabrication to
flatter Constantine.
Follis by Constantine. On the reverse, a labarum with
the chi-rho.Gothicus had claimed the divine protection
of Apollo-Sol Invictus. In mid-310, two years before
the victory at the Milvian Bridge, Constantine
reportedly experienced the publicly announced vision
in which Apollo-Sol Invictus appeared to him with
omens of success. Thereafter the reverses of his
coinage were dominated for several years by his
"companion, the unconquered Sol" — the inscriptions
read SOLI INVICTO COMITI. The depiction represents
Apollo with a solar halo, Helios-like, and the globe
in his hands. In the 320s Constantine has a halo of
his own. There are also coins depicting Apollo driving
the chariot of the Sun on a shield Constantine is
holding and another in 312 shows the Christian chi-rho
on a helmet Constantine is wearing.
An example of "staring eyes" on later Constantine
coinage.The great staring eyes in the iconography of
Constantine, though not specifically Christian, show
how official images were moving away from early
imperial conventions of realistic portrayal towards
schematic representations: the Emperor as Emperor, not
merely as this particular individual Constantine, with
his characteristic broad jaw and cleft chin. The large
staring eyes will loom larger as the 4th century
progresses: compare the early 5th century silver
coinage of Theodosius I

I NEVER SAID MARY WAS A PROSTITUTE, YOU DID...
PLEASE READ AGAIN...

I SAID...

however, mary magdalene was untouched, could it be
because jesus stood up for her instead of letting her
be stoned? imagine if you will, in perfect, fluent
greek, the books of john were penned, but no greek
speaking disciple was alive at the time to write, but
if mary did write these books, who would go against
her with the fear of God rising from the dead and
ascending, might come back for vengence if they
touched mary?

AND YOU SAID...

There is no evidence that Mary was a prostitute. Are
you getting your information from outdated sources?
Now what does this have to do with what I said?
Nothing really, you're just ranting to rant.

AND DEPENDING ON WHICH VERSION OF KJV YOU READ, IT
WILL SAY SOMETHING EQUAL AS THIS...BUT THERE IS MORE.
I WILL SHOW YOU AS DOING THE SAME AS THE PHARISSEES,
AND AS LUCIFER IN THE GARDEN WHEN HE SAID TO EVE, "DID
NOT GOD SAY YOU WILL BE AS GODS KNOWING GOOD AND
EVIL?"

READY?...

JOHN 8;1-11

Gospel According to Saint John
< prev | Chapter 8 | next >
The woman taken in adultery. Christ justifies his
doctrine.

1 And Jesus went unto mount Olivet. 2 And early in the
morning he came again into the temple, and all the
people came to him, and sitting down he taught them. 3
And the scribes and the Pharisees bring unto him a
woman taken in adultery: and they set her in the
midst, 4 And said to him: Master, this woman was even
now taken in adultery. 5 Now Moses in the law
commanded us to stone such a one. But what sayest
thou?
6 And this they said tempting him, that they might
accuse him. But Jesus bowing himself down, wrote with
his finger on the ground. 7 When therefore they
continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said
to them: He that is without sin among you, let him
first cast a stone at her. 8 And again stooping down,
he wrote on the ground. 9 But they hearing this, went
out one by one, beginning at the eldest. And Jesus
alone remained, and the woman standing in the midst.
10 Then Jesus lifting up himself, said to her: Woman,
where are they that accused thee? Hath no man
condemned thee?
11 Who said: No man, Lord. And Jesus said: Neither
will I condemn thee. Go, and now sin no more. 12 Again
therefore, Jesus spoke to them, saying: I am the light
of the world: he that followeth me, walketh not in
darkness, but shall have the light of life. 13 The
Pharisees therefore said to him: Thou givest testimony
of thyself: thy testimony is not true. 14 Jesus
answered, and said to them: Although I give testimony
of myself, my testimony is true: for I know whence I
came, and whither I go: but you know not whence I
come, or whither I go. 15 You judge according to the
flesh: I judge not any man.
16 And if I do judge, my judgment is true: because I
am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me. 17
And in your law it is written, that the testimony of
two men is true. 18 I am one that give testimony of
myself: and the Father that sent me giveth testimony
of me. 19 They said therefore to him: Where is thy
Father? Jesus answered: Neither me do you know, nor my
Father: if you did know me, perhaps you would know my
Father also. 20 These words Jesus spoke in the
treasury, teaching in the temple: and no man laid
hands on him, because his hour was not yet come.
21 Again therefore Jesus said to them: I go, and you
shall seek me, and you shall die in your sin. Whither
I go, you cannot come. 22 The Jews therefore said:
Will he kill himself, because he said: Whither I go,
you cannot come? 23 And he said to them: You are from
beneath, I am from above. You are of this world, I am
not of this world. 24 Therefore I said to you, that
you shall die in your sins. For if you believe not
that I am he, you shall die in your sin. 25 They said
therefore to him: Who art thou? Jesus said to them:
The beginning, who also speak unto you.
26 Many things I have to speak and to judge of you.
But he that sent me, is true: and the things I have
heard of him, these same I speak in the world. 27 And
they understood not, that he called God his Father. 28
Jesus therefore said to them: When you shall have
lifted up the Son of man, then shall you know, that I
am he, and that I do nothing of myself, but as the
Father hath taught me, these things I speak: 29 And he
that sent me, is with me, and he hath not left me
alone: for I do always the things that please him. 30
When he spoke these things, many believed in him.
31 Then Jesus said to those Jews, who believed him: If
you continue in my word, you shall be my disciples
indeed. 32 And you shall know the truth, and the truth
shall make you free. 33 They answered him: We are the
seed of Abraham, and we have never been slaves to any
man: how sayest thou: you shall be free? 34 Jesus
answered them: Amen, amen I say unto you: that
whosoever committeth sin, is the servant of sin. 35
Now the servant abideth not in the house for ever; but
the son abideth for ever.
36 If therefore the son shall make you free, you shall
be free indeed. 37 I know that you are the children of
Abraham: but you seek to kill me, because my word hath
no place in you. 38 I speak that which I have seen
with my Father: and you do the things that you have
seen with your father. 39 They answered, and said to
him: Abraham is our father. Jesus saith to them: If
you be the children of Abraham, do the works of
Abraham. 40 But now you seek to kill me, a man who
have spoken the truth to you, which I have heard of
God. This Abraham did not.
41 You do the works of your father. They said
therefore to him: We are not born of fornication: we
have one Father, even God. 42 Jesus therefore said to
them: If God were your Father, you would indeed love
me. For from God I proceeded, and came; for I came not
of myself, but he sent me: 43 Why do you not know my
speech? Because you cannot hear my word. 44 You are of
your father the devil, and the desires of your father
you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and
he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in
him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own:
for he is a liar, and the father thereof. 45 But if I
say the truth, you believe me not.
46 Which of you shall convince me of sin? If I say the
truth to you, why do you not believe me? 47 He that is
of God, heareth the words of God. Therefore you hear
them not, because you are not of God. 48 The Jews
therefore answered, and said to him: Do not we say
well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil? 49
Jesus answered: I have not a devil: but I honour my
Father, and you have dishonoured me. 50 But I seek not
my own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth.
51 Amen, amen I say to you: If any man keep my word,
he shall not see death for ever. 52 The Jews therefore
said: Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is
dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest: If any man
keep my word, he shall not taste death for ever. 53
Art thou greater than our father Abraham, who is dead?
and the prophets are dead. Whom dost thou make
thyself? 54 Jesus answered: If I glorify myself, my
glory is nothing. It is my Father that glorifieth me,
of whom you say that he is your God. 55 And you have
not known him, but I know him. And if I shall say that
I know him not, I shall be like to you, a liar. But I
do know him, and do keep his word.
56 Abraham your father rejoiced that he might see my
day: he saw it, and was glad. 57 The Jews therefore
said to him: Thou art not yet fifty years old, and
hast thou seen Abraham? 58 Jesus said to them: Amen,
amen I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am. 59
They took up stones therefore to cast at him. But
Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple.

THE ARTICLE IN QUESTION IS:

What is the view of women in the Bible? This seems to be a question that people throughout history and in our modern time want to answer. Was Jesus and Paul really anti women or is there more to it than the ‘plain reading’ of the text?

ANSWER:

AS FAR AS PAUL IS CONCERNED, IT IS OF NO INTEREST TO ME, NOW AS FOR JESUS, NO NO NO HE IS NOT ANTI-WOMAN...

ANYHOW, I COULD GO ON AND ON, BUT I AM NOT LIKE YOU...
DONT TAKE MY WORDS OUT OF CONTEXT...

[Mjornir]

by the way, da vinci later denounced his previous work...

[lilpixieofterror]

first, i never said that there were no woman of power
(that is you circumventing my QOUTE "RANTINGS"
UNQUOTE)...
PLEASE SHUT UP AND READ WHAT I SAID AGAIN...

Maybe if you were coherant instead of a rambler, I might be able to respond. Nobody has a clue what you're talking about or what this has to do with a word I said, but whatever.

I SAID...

however, mary magdalene was untouched, could it be
because jesus stood up for her instead of letting her
be stoned? imagine if you will, in perfect, fluent
greek, the books of john were penned, but no greek
speaking disciple was alive at the time to write, but
if mary did write these books, who would go against
her with the fear of God rising from the dead and
ascending, might come back for vengence if they
touched mary?

And this has want to do with my argument?

“My dear child, it was not Mary Magdalene's royal
blood that concerned the Church so much as it was her
consorting with Christ, who also had royal blood. As
you know, the Book of Matthew tells us that Jesus was
of the House of David. A descendant of King Solomon
–King of the Jews. By marrying into the powerful
House of Benjamin, Jesus fused two royal bloodlines,
creating a potent political union with the potential
of making a legitimate claim to the throne and
restoring the line of kings as it was under Solomon.”
–Teabing (249)

Using the Da Vinchi code for source work. HAHAHAHA! There are several books refuting that nonsense and only an idiot would believe that. Now do you have a source that is written by scholars or just a non-expert? The rest or your ranting post is more uses of crappy source work with a non-expert in the field combined with just plan incomptence that didn't refute a word I said nor did it answer anything. Keep trying...

AS FAR AS PAUL IS CONCERNED, IT IS OF NO INTEREST TO ME, NOW AS FOR JESUS, NO NO NO HE IS NOT ANTI-WOMAN...

In other words... you don't care what my argument is or what it is directed at, you just want to rant. Do you have a real source on any of your ranting or is Dan Brown and Wikipedia the only source work you have? Pick up some serious scholarly work and stop using crappy sources.

ANYHOW, I COULD GO ON AND ON, BUT I AM NOT LIKE YOU...
DONT TAKE MY WORDS OUT OF CONTEXT.

Your words were not taken in context and were discussed as such. The fact you use such crappy source work such as Dan Brown shows me that you haven't ever read a serious book or article on the subject. How about you actually refute my words instead of ranting or would that be too hard?

[Mjornir]

There is one more thing that should be taken in when reading this passage. It's the historical context of it all. Up until recent times, as in the 1900's some time, churches were segregated by sex. And what was happening in the church of Corinth was that women were standing up and yelling across the church asking their husbands what the preacher meant. Paul was probably addressing that problem of this particular church. It is most likely a statement to the women in that church to keep quiet and not be an interruption to the service. The reason for this is most likely because the women at the time were uneducated and simply did not understand what was being said.

Corinth was a church that had many problems with their women, because the culture of that city had women set up on a pedestal. So whenever Paul addresses women in Corinth it was because they were causing problems that other churches of the time didn't have.

Now I am not trying to say that this is the definitive answer to this question, but it is what makes the most sense to me.

NOW THIS IS ACCEPTABLE....CONGRADS!!!

[Mjornir]

Maybe if you were coherant instead of a rambler, I might be able to respond. Nobody has a clue what you're talking about or what this has to do with a word I said, but whatever.



And this has want to do with my argument?



Using the Da Vinchi code for source work. HAHAHAHA! There are several books refuting that nonsense and only an idiot would believe that. Now do you have a source that is written by scholars or just a non-expert? The rest or your ranting post is more uses of crappy source work with a non-expert in the field combined with just plan incomptence that didn't refute a word I said nor did it answer anything. Keep trying...



In other words... you don't care what my argument is or what it is directed at, you just want to rant. Do you have a real source on any of your ranting or is Dan Brown and Wikipedia the only source work you have? Pick up some serious scholarly work and stop using crappy sources.



Your words were not taken in context and were discussed as such. The fact you use such crappy source work such as Dan Brown shows me that you haven't ever read a serious book or article on the subject. How about you actually refute my words instead of ranting or would that be too hard?

LIKE I SAID, I AM NOT LIKE YOU AT ALL...YOU TAKE EVERYTHING OUT OF CONTEXT...
YOU ARE A VERSE-PICKER AND A WORD TWISTER...
DA VINCI IS NOT SOURCEWORK AND WITHOUT LOOKING AT MY MESSAGE TO YOU, I WILL TELL YOU WHAT IT HAD TO DO WITH..
YOU SAID CONSTANTINE WAS A CHRISTIAN. UNFORTUNATELY YOU DID NOT KNOW THAT THE INFO YOU GOT WHICH GAVE YOU THE IDEA IN THE FIRST PLACE WAS IN FACT BASED ON WHAT DI VINCI WROTE AS HE IS THE ONE WHO NOTED THE IDEA.
FURTHERMORE, YOU SAID YOU NEVER SAID MARY WAS A PROSTITUTE (IMPLYING @ THE TIME, THE NOTION THAT I SAID THAT YOU DID, WHEN I NEVER SAID IT IN THE FIRST PLACE), WHEN THE BIBLE ONLY SAYS SHE WAS CAUGHT IN THE ACT OF ADULTERY, BUT IN EITHER CASE, DA VINCI MADE THE CLAIM THAT MARY AND JESUS WERE IN A RELATION ONLY TO DESTROY THE IDEA THAT JESUS IS GOD IN THE FLESH(JUST IN CASE YOU WANT TO ARGUE-ONE OF THE MANY BOOKS OF JOHN((FORGIVE ME FOR NOT MAKING A COMPLETE VERSE LOCATION-I JUST GOT OFF WORK AND I AM TIRED)), "IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD, THE WORD WAS WITH GOD, AND THE WORD WAS GOD-" AND AS YOU READ-"AND THE WORD BECAME FLESH AND DWELT AMONG US-"

NOW, WE HAVE TWO ITEMS VIA DA VINCI IN WHICH HE CONFESSED HE MADE IT UP...
ALSO, THE MESSAGE IN REGARDS TO CONSTANTINE,IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT I LEFT YOU, YOU WILL SEE THAT THE IDEA IS HE WAS BAPTIZED PRIOR TO DEATH, BUT THERE IS OTHER ACCOUNTS THAT SUGGEST HE WAS BAPTIZED EVEN EARLIER, BUT THE STORY REMAINS THE SAME IN WHICH AFTER HE WAS BAPTIZD AND LATER DIED, HE LEFT A DONATION OF CONTROL OF ALL ROME TO THE PAPACY(POPE).
LATER (LIKE MANY MOONS LATER), IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THESE DOCUMENTS WERE FORGED AND NOT FROM CONSTANTINE...
SO WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE, SIMPLY PUT, CONSTANTINE WAS BORN, RAISE AS A PAGAN, AND DIED AS A PAGAN....

THIS IS THE DEFAULT TRUTH WHETHER YOU ACCEPT IT OR NOT, I-REALLY-DON'T-CARE.
JESUS TOLD THE PHARISEES THE TRUTH, AND THEY LISTENED NOT, DO YOU THINK I EXPECT ANY DIFFERENT FROM YOU?NOT ON YOUR PETTY LIFE, AND YES!!! I AM JUST PASSING THROUGH...

YOU WALK AROUND THINKING YOU KNOW WHAT IS, JUST BECAUSE SOME ELSE HAS A DEGREE AND TELLS YOU IT... I COULD POINT OUT MANY DETAILS IN THE BIBLE THAT WOULD SHAKE YOUR (QUOTE) FAITH (UNQUOTE) TO THE GROUND...

TRY THIS...

PETER, COME TO ME...

BUT LORD, YOU IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LAKE...

PETER....

AAAAGGGGHHHHH, I CANT SWIM!!!!!!

OH YE OF LITTLE FAITH.................


WHAT DO YOU THINK JESUS WAS TRYING TO TEACH PETER?
WHAT DO YOU THINK JESUS MEANS WHEN HE SAYS WE MUST BECOME AS HE IS?
WHAT WAS THE REAL PURPOSE GOD HAD MOSES SET THE HEBREWS FREE FROM EGYPT?
WHY DID JESUS ON THE MOUNT OF OLIVES PRAY TO THE FATHER IF HIS (JESUS')CUP COULD BE PASSED TO ANOTHER?
WHO IS CAIN'S REAL FATHER?
WHY DID JACOB BARTER A BOWL OF SOUP FOR ESAU'S BIRTHRIGHT?
WHAT IS THE REASON CAIN KILLED ABLE?
WHAT IS THE NAME OF THE FIRST "ADAM"?
WHY DID JESUS RIDE THE BABY JACKASS INTO TOWN? WHERE IS THE MENTION OF THE BABY'S MOTHER? AND WAS IT REALLY A PROPHECY? OR A PLOY?


AS I SAID, I COULD GO ON AND ON...
IF YOU ARE AS KNOWLEDGEABLE AS YOU THINK YOU ARE, ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS...

MY WAY OF THINKING IS UNORTHODOX ( I GRANT YOU THAT), HOWEVER, MY CONCLUSIONS ARE EQUAL IF NOT BETTER...
IM NOT IGNORANT AS YOU WOULD WISH, SO LETS BE CONSIDERATE...


WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING?
THE VAST MAJORITY OF THEOLOGISTS, IF YOU WILL, HAVE FORGOTTEN WHO GOD REALLY IS. YOU ALL(AGAIN, THE VAST MAJORITY) DONT REALIZE THAT EVEN LUCIFER DOESNT BELEIVE THAT OUR HEAVENLY FATHER EXISTS, WHICH IS WHY HE THINKS HE CAN WIN.
OUT OF EVERY THING YOU CLAIM TO KNOW, YOU ACTUALLY DONT KNOW ANYTHING AT ALL EXCEPT HOW TO MANIPULATE THE WORD OF GOD FOR YOUR OWN GAIN.
YOU RIDICULED (AT LEAST I AM ASSUMING) ANOTHER BY IMPOSING AND IMPLYING HOW YOU HAVE THE DEFAULT VEIW ABOUT WHAT PAUL SAID/MEANT IN REGARDS TO WOMEN IN THE CHURCH...
HMMM, DEFAULT VEIW=THE AVERAGE VEIW=THE NORM=MAN=PURE FOLLY....
SEEK THE WIDOM OF GOD, NOT OF SOME GUY W/ A DEGREE SAYING THE SUN IS GREEN, WHEN IN FACT IT IS RED BLUE, AND YELLOW (JUST AS A @$$COVER, IR,UV, AND VISIBLE LIGHT)......

TIME FOR A SMOKE!!! AND SPARE ME ABOUT CIGS ARE A SIN, AFTER ALL, GOD GAVE MAN DOMINION OVER THE EARTH-SO I DONT CARE TO HEAR IT...

[lilpixieofterror]

LIKE I SAID, I AM NOT LIKE YOU AT ALL...YOU TAKE EVERYTHING OUT OF CONTEXT...
YOU ARE A VERSE-PICKER AND A WORD TWISTER...

Yeah whatever.

DA VINCI IS NOT SOURCEWORK AND WITHOUT LOOKING AT MY MESSAGE TO YOU, I WILL TELL YOU WHAT IT HAD TO DO WITH..

Sure it is your source work. All you have presented thus far is a few quotes from the book. I know who Teabing is and I know that much of what he says is utter nonsense. But who needs fact, when we have you tell us everything!

YOU SAID CONSTANTINE WAS A CHRISTIAN. UNFORTUNATELY YOU DID NOT KNOW THAT THE INFO YOU GOT WHICH GAVE YOU THE IDEA IN THE FIRST PLACE WAS IN FACT BASED ON WHAT DI VINCI WROTE AS HE IS THE ONE WHO NOTED THE IDEA.

The idea that he was a Christian comes from sources about 1,000 years before Da Vinci's birth. In fact, close to Constantine's death, he was baptized as a Christian. So whine all you want that the idea came from Da Vinchi, but it didn't. Yet again... poor source works = stupid argument.

FURTHERMORE, YOU SAID YOU NEVER SAID MARY WAS A PROSTITUTE (IMPLYING @ THE TIME, THE NOTION THAT I SAID THAT YOU DID, WHEN I NEVER SAID IT IN THE FIRST PLACE), WHEN THE BIBLE ONLY SAYS SHE WAS CAUGHT IN THE ACT OF ADULTERY,

The Bible says nothing of the sort stupid. Those two women are most likely different women. The connection to Mary was made centuries latter by a sermon by a pope and in the 20th century, the RCC offically removed Mary from the label of a prostitute. Like I said, poor source on your part as made you use one stupid argumen tafter another. The bible says nothing of the sort, stop getting your information from Dan Brown and start reading some in depth books on the topic.

BUT IN EITHER CASE, DA VINCI MADE THE CLAIM THAT MARY AND JESUS WERE IN A RELATION ONLY TO DESTROY THE IDEA THAT JESUS IS GOD IN THE FLESH(JUST IN CASE YOU WANT TO ARGUE-ONE OF THE MANY BOOKS OF JOHN((FORGIVE ME FOR NOT MAKING A COMPLETE VERSE LOCATION-I JUST GOT OFF WORK AND I AM TIRED)), "IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD, THE WORD WAS WITH GOD, AND THE WORD WAS GOD-" AND AS YOU READ-"AND THE WORD BECAME FLESH AND DWELT AMONG US-"

Da Vinchi made no such claim and you're not going to those claims in his personal note books. Sorry stupid, but you will not find in the early traditions of Mary and Jesus having any kind of sexual relationship and the only evidence that Dan Brown has is from the Gospel of Mary (that was written over 300 years after the Gospels) and even the Gospel of Mary makes no such claims. Like I said, do your homework and stop using Dan Brown for your source work.

NOW, WE HAVE TWO ITEMS VIA DA VINCI IN WHICH HE CONFESSED HE MADE IT UP...

Ummm nope, you just have believing whatever Dan Brown tells you without reason or thinking.

ALSO, THE MESSAGE IN REGARDS TO CONSTANTINE,IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT I LEFT YOU, YOU WILL SEE THAT THE IDEA IS HE WAS BAPTIZED PRIOR TO DEATH, BUT THERE IS OTHER ACCOUNTS THAT SUGGEST HE WAS BAPTIZED EVEN EARLIER, BUT THE STORY REMAINS THE SAME IN WHICH AFTER HE WAS BAPTIZD AND LATER DIED, HE LEFT A DONATION OF CONTROL OF ALL ROME TO THE PAPACY(POPE).

And another error of yours. The country of the Roman Empire was not left to the pope at all and you'd be hard pressed to find anybody making such claims. Hey, who needs real source woek when we have Dan Brown to tell us everything we want to hear?

LATER (LIKE MANY MOONS LATER), IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THESE DOCUMENTS WERE FORGED AND NOT FROM CONSTANTINE...
SO WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE, SIMPLY PUT, CONSTANTINE WAS BORN, RAISE AS A PAGAN, AND DIED AS A PAGAN....

Nobody claimed moron that they were from Constantine. They are from an historian and nobody claimed that Constantine was not a pagan earlier in his life. More gross errors you are caught in. Sorry stupid, but agian you'd be hard pressed to present evidence for your claim. Do you have any or do you just have assertions from your scholar (Dan Brown)?

THIS IS THE DEFAULT TRUTH WHETHER YOU ACCEPT IT OR NOT, I-REALLY-DON'T-CARE.
JESUS TOLD THE PHARISEES THE TRUTH, AND THEY LISTENED NOT, DO YOU THINK I EXPECT ANY DIFFERENT FROM YOU?NOT ON YOUR PETTY LIFE, AND YES!!! I AM JUST PASSING THROUGH...

I think you're an idiot and you keep showing it by using crappy source work or assertions that don't fit in with history, but whatever you want to believe.

YOU WALK AROUND THINKING YOU KNOW WHAT IS, JUST BECAUSE SOME ELSE HAS A DEGREE AND TELLS YOU IT... I COULD POINT OUT MANY DETAILS IN THE BIBLE THAT WOULD SHAKE YOUR (QUOTE) FAITH (UNQUOTE) TO THE GROUND...

I doubt it, but you are pretty arrogant and downright clueless on everything, but for my own entertainment, I think I'll crush you just for fun.

TRY THIS...

PETER, COME TO ME...

BUT LORD, YOU IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LAKE...

PETER....

AAAAGGGGHHHHH, I CANT SWIM!!!!!!

OH YE OF LITTLE FAITH.................

That was in Mark, but that isn't how it went. What this has to do with anything... I have no idea... I guess this is more of your ranting?

WHAT DO YOU THINK JESUS WAS TRYING TO TEACH PETER?

To have faith.

WHAT DO YOU THINK JESUS MEANS WHEN HE SAYS WE MUST BECOME AS HE IS?

What verse are you talking about? Got a quote on that?

WHAT WAS THE REAL PURPOSE GOD HAD MOSES SET THE HEBREWS FREE FROM EGYPT?

To establish the Jewish people as his choosen people and to give them back the land he promissed their faither?

WHY DID JESUS ON THE MOUNT OF OLIVES PRAY TO THE FATHER IF HIS (JESUS')CUP COULD BE PASSED TO ANOTHER?

Because his human side was crying out to God. Might want to try to learn about about Molinism, it would do you a load of good at this point.

WHO IS CAIN'S REAL FATHER?

Adam, have any evidence he isn't?

WHY DID JACOB BARTER A BOWL OF SOUP FOR ESAU'S BIRTHRIGHT?

What does this have to do with anything?

blah blah blah balh...

You sure have a hard time keeping on topic, huh?

AS I SAID, I COULD GO ON AND ON...
IF YOU ARE AS KNOWLEDGEABLE AS YOU THINK YOU ARE, ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS...

I answered them before and answered them again. You're just don't like the answers, so you repeat it again and again and hope it changes.

MY WAY OF THINKING IS UNORTHODOX ( I GRANT YOU THAT), HOWEVER, MY CONCLUSIONS ARE EQUAL IF NOT BETTER...
IM NOT IGNORANT AS YOU WOULD WISH, SO LETS BE CONSIDERATE...

You are very dumb and your ranting and off topic questions prove that. Your conclusions are not equal or better, they are crap that downright ignores real history and what the Bible clearly says. Keep believing whatever you want to hear, that is much better than arguments, huh?

WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING?
THE VAST MAJORITY OF THEOLOGISTS, IF YOU WILL, HAVE FORGOTTEN WHO GOD REALLY IS. YOU ALL(AGAIN, THE VAST MAJORITY) DONT REALIZE THAT EVEN LUCIFER DOESNT BELEIVE THAT OUR HEAVENLY FATHER EXISTS, WHICH IS WHY HE THINKS HE CAN WIN.

Anybody figure out how this moron comes to these conclusions?

OUT OF EVERY THING YOU CLAIM TO KNOW, YOU ACTUALLY DONT KNOW ANYTHING AT ALL EXCEPT HOW TO MANIPULATE THE WORD OF GOD FOR YOUR OWN GAIN.

Prove it, I have provided source work for my claims as well as Bible verses that agree with me. You have presented crap from Dan Brown that is laughed at by serious scholars. Gosh... who should others believe?

YOU RIDICULED (AT LEAST I AM ASSUMING) ANOTHER BY IMPOSING AND IMPLYING HOW YOU HAVE THE DEFAULT VEIW ABOUT WHAT PAUL SAID/MEANT IN REGARDS TO WOMEN IN THE CHURCH...

Yep, and rightfully so. Just as I ridicule you for ranting like a moron.

HMMM, DEFAULT VEIW=THE AVERAGE VEIW=THE NORM=MAN=PURE FOLLY....
SEEK THE WIDOM OF GOD, NOT OF SOME GUY W/ A DEGREE SAYING THE SUN IS GREEN, WHEN IN FACT IT IS RED BLUE, AND YELLOW (JUST AS A @$$COVER, IR,UV, AND VISIBLE LIGHT)......

Does this ranting have a point? Are you going to prov eme wrong yet or just rant and rant some more?

TIME FOR A SMOKE!!! AND SPARE ME ABOUT CIGS ARE A SIN, AFTER ALL, GOD GAVE MAN DOMINION OVER THE EARTH-SO I DONT CARE TO HEAR IT...

So you're done ranting? Come back when you want to rant again!