Was Jesus married?greenspun.com : LUSENET : Ask Jesus : One Thread |
I have always been intrigued by the possibility of Jesus ever having a companion.I myself don't subscribe 100% to this belief, since I think Jesus knew his mission was dangerous. Paul also felt being without a female companion was also better because he faced many arrests, whippings, and other types of tribulations. Yet, I am not alone on this. According to the Gospel of Phillip: 1. The Gospel of Philip: ... the companion of the [...] Mary Magdalene. [...] her more than [...] the disciples, and used to kiss her [...] on her [...]. The rest of [...] ... They said to him, "Why do you love her more than all of us?" (Elaine Pagels,The Gnostic Gospels, p. 64) this part of the fragment is usually translated as ... the companion of the [Savior is.] Mary Magdalene. [But Christ loved] her more than [all] the disciples, and used to kiss her [often] on her [mouth]. The rest of [the disciples were offended by it ...] . . . They said to him, "Why do you love her more than all of us?" another section of the Gospel of Philip which mentions Mary Magdalene as the companion of Jesus "There were three who always walked with the Lord: Mary, his mother, and her sister, and Magdalene, the one who was called his companion. His sister and his mother and his companion were each a Mary." Mary Magdalene What do you think?
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), February 05, 2004
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), May 14, 2004
As for the Wisdom who is called the barren she is the mother of the angels.And the companion of the Saviour is Mary Magdalene. But Christ loved her more than all the disciples and used to kiss her often on the mouth. The rest of the disciples were offended by it and expressed disapproval. They said to him Why do you love her more than all of us? The Saviour answered and said to them,Why do I not love you like her?.When a blind man and one who sees are together in the darkness, they are no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in the darknessGospel of phillip -- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), February 5, 2004.
The Gospel of Phillip is NOT God's Preserved Word. -- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), February 5, 2004.
Gospel of phillip. Other Ancient writings plus the Book of Mormon.>
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), February 5, 2004.
David you say: "The Gospel of Phillip is NOT God's Preserved Word."
How do you know this? Obviously it is not because the church did not declare it canonical. Did you read it and decide that it was not God's word? Is this a matter of private interpretation?
-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), February 5, 2004.
On what the gospel of Phillip contains: Bentley Layton – The Gnostic Scriptures pg.325 "The work called The Gospel According to Philip is a Valentinian anthology containing some one hundred short excerpts taken from various other works. None of the sources of these excerpts have been identified, and apparently they do not survive. To judge from their style and contents, they were sermons, treatises, or philosophical epistles (typical Valentinian genres), as well as collected aphorisms or short dialogues with comments. Only some of the sources can definitely be identified as Valentinian. Because of their brevity and the lack of context it is difficult to assign any of them to particular schools of Valentinian theology. On the other hand, nothing indicates that all come from one and the same branch of the Valentinian church. It is possible that some of the excerpts are by Valentinus himself. Others, however, refer to etymologies in Syriac, the Semitic language (a dialect of Aramaic) used in Edessa and western Mesopotamia; these must be the work of a Valentinian theologian of the East, writing in a bilingual milieu such as Edessa (see Map 5). Probably the language of composition of all the excerpts was Greek." In dating the 'Gospel of Phillip': Hans-Martin Schenke writes (New Testament Apocrypha, vol. 1, pp. 182- 183): The only fixed point at the other side, the terminus ante quem non, is the activity of the gnostic leader Valentinus (in Rome about 138- 158), since the Gos. Phil. contains clearly Valentinian teachings, as will be shown in detail later. Since their character and the manner in which they appear seem to presuppose a certain development in the Valentian school, we may not remain too close to the time of Valentinus himself for the presumptive time of composition. But Isenberg's dating to the second half of the 3rd century may still lie about half a century too late. The older view, often expressed, which would have the Gos. Phil. composed even in the 2nd century may still be considerably more probable."
On a final note, we know that this cannot be any 'Phillip' mentioned in scripture by the content and dates, allowing us to reject it as a 'gospel'to be included in Holy Writ as God used the men of that time to complete His Word. It seems quite amazing that some who reject the reliability of the Scriptural Gospel accounts from the very first century and in living memory of Christ would then find the remotest interest, reliability or likelihood of authenticity in anything written so long after.
-- Gillian Dickenson (Gilliantwin@msn.com), February 6, 2004.
David, doesn't it surprise you to find a woman, not related to Jesus by blood, to follow him, even to his death place and burial place?
Do you know at what age men married in thse days?
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), February 10, 2004.
Gillian, My apologies for ignoring your post. I agree that the Gospel of Phillip should not be in the canon of scripture. The argument that some of us have been having with David among others is how did we get our current canon of scripture. Those of us who are Catholic believe that the Church had the authority to inform us of what was canonical. Luke is not inspired because the Church said it was, the Church said it was inspired because it was inspired. David and others deny this, but they cannot tell us how we were informed of the canon of scripture. Therefore, my question to David was if we don't have a church which has authority, then how would we know that the Gospel of Phillip doesn't belong in the canon of scripture?
That was the real question I was getting at.
P.S. Given all of the manuscripts that were floating around back in the early centuries of the church, it's pretty amazing that there are as few arguments about what belongs in the canon of scripture.
-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), February 11, 2004.
dear james, there is nothing to apologise for my friend. Yet I think the issue of how we came to have a Bible in our hands today that was preserved from the first century and beyond is an important one.
I believe that the Holy Spirit inspired the new testament just as He did the Old, and we know that in the Old other books are mentioned (about a dozen) that were not accepted as scripture.
I think one has to consider what has always been recognised as scripture from the first century. In the early church father's writings we have the whole N.T. apart from a few verses.
When one traces the three lines of manuscript ancestry (Antioch, Alexandria and Rome) one can begin to see the pure preservation and also the corruption of God's Word.
The questions that need answering as I see it are:
Could God have preserved a complete and infallible New testament before any of the councils of the Roman Catholic Church?
And if one believe's not, and only a mixed bag of writings was available to those reading them, then what would that mean for those lost souls in the periods between?
Plus, if one does not believe that God could preserve His pure Word, in spite of any man or church, then why did he promise to do so in Psalm 12?
I do not mean to be contentious, I have no argument with anyone who believes differently than I, I just have to make my stand on the Word and not on history, and I believe these questions are some that need pondering to come to honest personal conclusions.
May God Bless you and enlighten us all...
-- Gillian Dickenson (Gilliantwin@msn.com), February 11, 2004.
Gillian Psalm 12 -- God promises to preserve....?????
anyways, i think you're really missing James' point here.
where would we be without the Catholic Church.
no Bible.
that's where!
open your eyes, girl.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 11, 2004.
Dear Ian, "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."
The Author of the Bible gave me my scriptures, scriptures that were completed in around 90 AD and preserved to us today.
We know that the 1611 translators had every manuscript at their disposal, the Vulgate (codex vaticanus), the Syriac Version, the codex Sinaiticus, Montanus' version, the Waldensian version, the early church writings etc. and of course the manuscript we now call the Textus Receptus.
Those eminent scholars after looking at all the evidence (which is vast) and comparing the witness of each manuscript, compiled the Authorised Bible.
So, my answer to where would I be without the Roman Catholic church? Right where I am now - anywhere the unadulterated Word of God was from 90 AD to 1611 AD and beyond.
God Bless you...
-- Gillian Dickenson (Gilliantwin@msn.com), February 12, 2004.
Ian again, And please do not misunderstand my answer. I am not anti-Roman Catholic, I am simply pro- God's Word.
-- Gillian Dickenson (Gilliantwin@msn.com), February 12, 2004.
Well, I'm anti-acid, anti-static, and anti-biotic. But, we are considering the writings of A.D. 90 and beyond? Who are we putting our faith in? The compilers of the Scriptures? ......................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 13, 2004.
indeed Rod. indeed. biased compilers using Catholic Bibles and the Catholic Church Fathers' writings
PS this is Psalm 12 of The Book of Psalms according to an authentic Catholic Bible:
Usquequo, Domine.
A prayer in tribulation.
1 Unto the end, a psalm for David. How long, O Lord, wilt thou forget me unto the end? how long dost thou turn away thy face from me?
2 How long shall I take counsels in my soul, sorrow in my heart all the day?
3 How long shall my enemy be exalted over Me?
4 Consider, and hear me, O Lord, my God. Enlighten my eyes, that I never sleep in death:
5 Lest at any time my enemy say: I have prevailed against him. They that trouble me, will rejoice when I am moved:
6 But I have trusted in thy mercy. My heart shall rejoice in thy salvation: I will sing to the Lord, who giveth me good things: yea, I will sing to the name of the Lord, the most high.
did this get a complete re-write in 1611?!?!?!
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 13, 2004.
dear rod, My faith is in God's Word and His promise to preserve it. If God can divinely inspire His Word, then He can divinely preserve it, obviously. If God can prevent Baalim from speaking anything other than His pure Word then He can surely preserve the pure writing of it.
It depends whether you trust His Word or not, as I see it.
And Ian,
The translators of 1611 had your Bible manuscript (Latin Vulgate), as they had all others available - which is why Psalm 12 is where it is, and as it is. Is that psalm otherwise numbered in your version or is it just omitted? If it is omitted (it is in all other versions as far as I know) then one may ask why.
God Bless...
-- Gillian Dickenson (Gilliantwin@msn.com), February 13, 2004.
Hi Gillian. "It depends whether you trust His Word or not, as I see it."
Yes I trust His Word. That would be His Incarnate Word--Jesus Christ.
...........................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 13, 2004.
dear rod, I am pleased you do trust the Word, for one cannot separate the Word from the Words. And sorry to do a scripture bombardment on you here, but I just wish to give an example of what I am, very poorly, trying to say.
"Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him."
"thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name." Psalm 138:2
"The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple." Ps.119:130
"Thou art my portion, O LORD: I have said that I would keep thy words." Ps.119:57
"So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the 'word' of God. But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their 'words' unto the ends of the world." Romans 10
-- Gillian Dickenson (Gilliantwin@msn.com), February 14, 2004.
Hi Gillian, I hear you. I agree, of course. We can "hear" and "see" the Scriptures. But, my argument deals with identifying the Scriptures and those who put the pen to paper. Before I eat an apple, I check it for any questionable parts, its origin, and its additives. Is the apple "kosher"? This probably makes me sound like a non-believer. I should say that I hope I would be understood as one who demands the entire truth. Yes, I do agree
"So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the 'word' of God. But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their 'words' unto the ends of the world." Romans 10
BTW, keep your Scriptural Bombardment going strong. Our faith may not suffer defeat, but only victory!
.........................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 14, 2004.
Was that a Catholic slip? Yes, we do suffer even in victory.
.................................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 14, 2004.
dear rod, Those are my sentiments exactly. I think one has to do the research if one honestly wants to know. Faith has 'evidence' and 'substance', it is never blind unless we are.
And amen, we do have victory ..."For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith." 1John 5:4
God Bless you...
-- Gillian Dickenson (Gilliantwin@msn.com), February 14, 2004.
"...then one may ask why..." you believe totally in a Bible selectively put together by men 1,600 years after Our Lord walked the earth when His Church had already done that 1,200 years before. -- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 14, 2004.
dear Ian, Mainly the manuscript evidence. The documentation is quite vast, but basically it boils down to the fact that all Bible's have been translated from three manuscripts. The Sinai, the Vulgate and the Textus Receptus are what make up todays translations.
My conclusions, after researching the evidence, (and I hope that I did this honestly, wanting the pure Word of God, 'wherever' it was), are that I believe that the T.R. is God's preserved Word.
The 1611 boys merely put what was already available into a Book that could be placed into the hand of every English speaking person. They didn't 'create' a Word of God, they merely 'translated' it.
But Ian, if your research has led you to different conclusions than mine, then so be it, I have no problem with that.
God Bless you...
-- Gillian Dickenson (Gilliantwin@msn.com), February 15, 2004.
But Gillian, the deuterocanicals were part of the O.T. Greek Septuigint, which was the popular text at the time of the apostles and all through the early church years. In fact, the early church fathers quotes from the apochyrpha extensively. The original 1611 KJV published the apochyphra. It was several centuries AFTER the first publication of the KJV that the apochrypha was finally "phased out." So the KJV you have TODAY is nothing likes its archtype published in 1611.
God Bless,
Gail
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 16, 2004.
bump
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), May 14, 2004.
Dear Gail,This may be a long post, sorry.
If you accept the Apocrypha as divinely inspired then that's fine, I have no problem with that. Yet I do not, for some of the following reasons.
Quoting something from any book is not a mandate for it being scripture, even Paul gives us a quote from Athenian poetry in Acts 17. To the Jews "were commited the lively oracles of God" Romans 3 tells us, and they never accepted the Apocrypha as Scripture, and they should know.
The 1611 translators not accepting the Apocrypha as inspired, placed it between the Old and New Testaments as an Historical Document. It was never in either of the Testaments of God and it was later removed.
Here is a quote about the Apocrypha's acceptance as scripture:
"In the first place, it is contrary to the example of Christ and His Apostles. Never in the New Testament is any passage from the Apocrypha quoted as Scripture or referred to as such. This is admitted by all students of this subject, including present-day scholars such as B. M. Metzger (1957). (10) This fact is decisive for all those who acknowledge the divine authority and infallible inspiration of the New Testament writers. And all the more is this so if it be true, as Metzger and many other scholars have contended, that Paul was familiar with Wisdom, James with Ecclesiasticus, John with Tobit, and the author of Hebrews (who may have been Paul) with 2 Maccabees. (11) For if these Apostles knew these apocryphal books this well and still refrained from quoting or mentioning them as Scripture, then it is doubly certain that they did not accord these books a place in the Old Testament canon. According to C. C. Torrey (1945), however, only in the Epistle to the Hebrews is there clear evidence of a literary allusion to the Apocrypha. (12) A second reason why the books of the Apocrypha cannot be regarded as canonical is that the Jews, the divinely appointed guardians of the Old Testament Scriptures, never esteemed them such. This fact is freely admitted by contemporary scholars. According to Torrey, the Jews not only rejected the Apocrypha, but after the overthrow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., they went so far as to "destroy, systematically and thoroughly, the Semitic originals of all extra- canonical literature," including the Apocryphal, "The feeling of the leaders at that time," Torrey tells us, "is echoed in a later Palestinian writing (Midrash Qoheleth, 12,12): 'Whosoever brings together in his house more than twenty-four books (the canonical scriptures) brings confusion.' " (13) And additional evidence that the Jews did not recognize the Apocrypha as canonical is supplied by the Talmudic tract Baba Bathra (2nd century) and by the famous Jewish historian Josephus (c. 93 A.D.) in his treatise Against Apion. Neither of these sources make any mention of the Apocrypha in the lists which they give of the Old Testament books. For, as Torrey observes, the Jews had but one standard, acknowledged everywhere. Only such books as were believed to have been composed in either Hebrew or Aramaic before the end of the Persian period were received into the Old Testament canon. (14)" (end of quote)
Although the Alexandrian Jews gave assent to the Apocrypha in places, (Schuerer (1908) mentions Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, and others), others such as Melito (?-172), Julius Africanus (160-240), Origen (182-251), Eusebius (275-340), Athanasius (293-373) Jerome (340-420)(whose translation the Latin Vulgate is) and many later Fathers of the Greek Church believed them to be non-canonical.
From the testimony of the Jews, of Christ Himself, of history, especially the origins of the Septuagint, and a few other reasons, I have to reject the Apocrypha as Scripture. If you, from your evidences, have to accept it then that's fine.
God Bless you...
-- Gillian Dickenson (Gilliantwin@msn.com), February 17, 2004.
Hi Gillian, Yes, these issues have been debated on and on ad nauseum, and in fact there are still those today who feel that many N.T. books do not belong in the canon for various reasons.
In 397, the canon of the N.T. was finally and definitively authorized as scripture along with all 7 books of the deuteros. I might add there was much argument even then amongst the bishops as to what was "Bible," and what was not. Nonetheless, the gavel was wrapped, and what we as Catholics have is exactly what our forefathers had.
I believe that the Holy Spirit guided that council and that their decision was inspired and authoritative. I believe that the Protestant Reformers took authority that didn't belong to them and "revamped" the canon. They succeeded in opening the proverbial "can of worms," in that today there are many so-called Christian groups who seek to remove N.T. books . . . and who's to stop them?
As R.C. Sproul, the noted Calvinist theologian has stated, the best a Protestant can claim is that they have a "fallible collection of infallible books."
God Bless,
Gail
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 17, 2004.
Dear Gail, Yes indeed, this issue and similar ones have been on the debating floor for a long time, and of course R.C. Sproul is entitled to his opinion as well as we.
However, I stand upon my beliefs for the reasons I have stated. I believe the A.V. to be the complete, unadulterated, inerrant and divinely preserved Word of God.
We simply believe differently, and that's fine.
I believe the authority to translate and determine God's Word is given to the 'priesthood of believers' ( 1st Peter 2) under God's guidance, just as it was given to the O.T. priesthood under God's guidance.
The 1611 translators were extremely honest and thorough in their work of translation, and in their usage of the majority texts, and did not revamp anything, (Revamp - To patch up or restore; renovate. 2. To revise or reconstruct (a manuscript, for example). For although the Word of God did need restoring to the people, it was never revised, patched up or renovated. Yet those are definitions that may certainly apply to some other modern versions I can think of. On the contrary the 1611 books are merely the ones that the early church and even Jerome only accepted (which Trent later adopted as their Bible) and each manuscript was compared meticulously with all other manuscripts. Ninety Five percent of the manuscript evidence supports the Authorised version and that cannot be honestly ignored.
I understand your position, being Catholic, and like I said, if your research leads you to different conclusions than mine, I have no problem with that.
I, however, must stand on what I have determined to be true for myself.
God Bless you and love in the Lord... and thanks for the reply and sorry for the long post...
-- Gillian Dickenson (Gilliantwin@msn.com), February 18, 2004.
Hi Gillian, I think we are talking about two different things. I am not talking about the 1611 translation, which, BTW, I love also, but I am talking about the 1611 "containing" the entire "Catholic" Bible including the apochrypha, or deuterocanonicals. The original KJV also listed a liturgical calendar equipped with "Feast Saint Days"
In trying to "nail down" your position, let me ask you this: Are you saying that the Holy Spirit did not guide the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D. in determining which books were but did guide the Reformers?
God Bless,
Gail
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 18, 2004.
Dear Gail, Do forgive me, I merely wished to try and answer your question about the revamping of the 1611 translators. I am pleased you love the A.V., as I also do.
And thankyou, one needs nailing down every now and then *laffin'*
My position is this:
I reject the the list of books compiled by Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria in 367 as an accepted N.T. canon that the council published, yes.
The list I have is as follows: Canon 24. Besides the canonical Scriptures, nothing shall be read in church under the name of divine Scriptures. Moreover, the canonical Scriptures are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the four books of the Kings,(a) the two books of Chronicles, Job, the Psalms of David, five books of Solomon,(b) the book of the Twelve [minor] Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, the two books of Ezra,(c) and the two books of the Maccabees. The books of the New Testament: the Gospels, four books; the Acts of the Apostles, one book; the epistles of the apostle Paul, thirteen; of the same to the Hebrews, one epistle; of Peter, two; of John the apostle, three; of James, one; of Jude, one; the Revelation of John. Concerning the confirmation of this canon, the Church across the sea shall be consulted. On the anniversaries of martyrs, their acts shall also be read.(d) (a) That is, First and Second Samuel and First and Second Kings. (b) The five books ascribed to Solomon in the Septuagint are Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom of Solomon, and the Psalms of Solomon. (c) That is, Ezra and Nehemiah.
I reject it for the reasons I have already stated, plus I reject the Alexandrian texts anyway.
I also believe that the Holy Spirit's dictation and preservation of His infallible Word of their 66 books began on its original completion. The scripture was already there by 367 for men to determine for themselves by the substance and evidence what was scripture and what wasn't. That does not negate the need for God's guidance in the matter, yet I do not believe the Holy Spirit will ever guide against His completed Word, as I believe happened at Carthage.
What the 1611 translators did was determine the correct text from the vast evidences they had, as anyone can do today, not merely trusting in a divine overtaking of their own judgement, but believing God's Word was already given completely and preserved in the majority of the texts, their substance and their lineage. Hence the Apocrypha was placed between God's Two Testaments as an historical document and later removed.
The Church of England still keeps a litugical calendar today, and celebrates many saints and feast days, I have no problem with feast days or celebrations, although I probably would not keep them myself. But if other's wish to then so be it.
N.B. It is interesting that even those who do not support the T.R. as the infallible Word of God still believe the T.R. is the correct scriptural text. For example, Dean Burgon, not a KJV proponent, did a truly extensive work on the manuscript evidence and came to the conclusion that the T.R. had to be the correct translation of the correct manuscripts.
I hope I have given some clarity to my position, albeit another long post, sorry.
God Bless you...
-- Gillian Dickenson (Gilliantwin@msn.com), February 19, 2004.
Hi Gillian, I guess I find very much comfort in knowing that the Bible I have in my hands is the same as what my forefathers had. I like it that I have the Wisdom books, which are so very inspirational in holy living. I know for certain that the earliest of the early church fathers quoted from them EXTENSIVELY. I know that these precious books were part of the Greek Septuigint. It seems that if they were NOT canonical, the ones that would know would be the ones that were closest to the time of Christ and closest to His apostles.
Additionally, the books of Macabees, which are historical and evidentiary in nature, fullfill prophecies that were made to Daniel, and also give us a perfect arch-type of the anti-Christ to come. I know many Protestant pastors who rely on Macabees in their "end-time" scenarios.
Your method of determining which books are "canonical" might be alright for you, but for the average Joe "it just ain't happening." We are still living in a time when much of the world is illiterate. Your system of using your own intellect to determine the canonicity of the Bible, as well as determining just who is preaching the right gospel, is an enormous, if not impossible burden for most men to bear; and with all due respect to you, would leave much of the world's population at a seemingly insurmountable disadvantage.
God Bless,
Gail
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 19, 2004.
Dear Gail, As you wish my dear. I am pleased you find comfort in your beliefs. Yet the Holy Spirit had already given His guidance in the preservation of His Word, hence the evidence, and I trust it, as do many others. And 'reason' and 'intellect' are actually given us for a purpose. God says "Come, let us reason together" and reasoning when based on evidence is not an unsound thing at all. We are told to 'prove all things' remember.
I have other 'reasons' for trusting that beloved Word I hold in my hand also.
One wonders how Peter determined Paul's letters were 'scripture' (2 Peter 3:16) without a council *smile*. Perhaps his determination was from the evidence of content and wide acceptance of the believers of what was scripture.
But really Gail, our difference is not with which 'Bible' but with which Final Authority. Yours is your church, mine is that Book, and so be it, let the Lord be Judge of what is His and true.
Love in the Lord...
God Bless you...
-- Gillian Dickenson (Gilliantwin@msn.com), February 20, 2004.
Hi again Gillian, Yes, you are absolutely correct, it does boil down to authority.
If the Bible could self-interpret we would not have 30,000 Protestant denominations. If all Protestants could even agree on issues as important as baptism, baptism in the Holy Spirit, the means of salvation, the loss of salvation, the trinity, then it would not be such a huge dilemma.
When I was searching for a Protestant Church some three to four years ago, the problem of "which one" was never so FRUSTRATING. I had been involved in many evangelical, fundamentalist, word of Faith churches over the last 20 years and never really could buy in to ALL of any of their teachings.
Then the Lord told me to "go back the way I came." I thought he meant go back to the previous church we were at, but that wasn't the answer. It was a Word of Faith, health and wealth gospel church. Never has been my cup of tea and I couldn't the tolerate the over- emphasis on "me-me, it's all about me" gospel.
Anyway, long story short, I stumbled into the Catholic Church quite INADVERTENTLY. Two years of intense study, both enchanted and yet horrified at the same time over the things I was finding in history, agonizing over the teachings of the fathers and how foreign they were to the way I had been taught, and here I am, finally home.
To me every other church I have been in has been way too "off the beaten path." I wanted to tread the paths my fathers in the faith treaded. Reading scripture through THEIR lense is spectacular, uplifting and like finding water in the desert.
God Bless,
Gail
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 20, 2004.
Dear Gail, Thankyou for that testimony, it truly delighted me. It is always interesting to hear of how one came to be where they are.
I had a similar experience, though a shorter one. I started attending a Pentecostal church, I was a heroin addict at the time, had been for years, but there were no answers in that church for me about God and life. Eventually the Lord led me to the one I am now in, where I too had so much opened to me, especially God's Word, and when I was saved, the indwelling Spirit gave me power over my sin. Praise His Name!!!
Not long after I wrote a Christian Poetry Book, as a thankyou 'gift' to God (if that makes sense) and continue to write poetry as my second love - my first being God's Word, the third being music.
God has been extremely good to me and that is why I love Him and thank Him for His eternal Salvation and His Word.
Thankyou again for your post, it blessed me.
God Bless you also...
-- Gillian Dickenson (Gilliantwin@msn.com), February 21, 2004.
Hi Gillian, What a testimony! Thank you for sharing. What a miracle God has done in your life. I rejoice with you and all the heavenly host at the transforming power of our Lord and what he has done for you.
God uses strange methods to lead us sometimes, doesn't he? I remember for years crying out to God, "Use me, Lord" "I'll go where you send me WHEREVER, just plant me." Never in my wildest dreams would I have thought this is where He had in mind! But He is using me now like never before, so I praise His name.
Are you able to use your talents in the body of believers that you are in? He has great things in store for you, to be sure. May the Lord open many many doors for you to touch the lives of scores of people.
God Bless,
Gail
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 21, 2004.
Beautiful! ...........
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 21, 2004.
i agree Rod, beautiful. but take some credit yourself though.
you have compassion to burn.
given that Gillian has declared herself a poet, i would love to post this here. its by LArkin. it is a moving tribute to Tradition:
For nations vague as weed, For nomads among stones, Small-statured cross-faced tribes And cobble-close families In mill-towns on dark mornings Life is slow dying.
So are their separate ways Of building, benediction, Measuring love and money Ways of slow dying. The day spent hunting pig Or holding a garden-party,
Hours giving evidence Or birth, advance On death equally slowly. And saying so to some Means nothing; others it leaves Nothing to be said.
this is the key to this poem i believe: "So are their separate ways"
but i think that the real tragedy is the convergence.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 21, 2004.
in a more favorable format:
For nations vague as weed,
For nomads among stones,
Small-statured cross-faced tribes
And cobble-close families
In mill-towns on dark mornings
Life is slow dying.
So are their separate ways
Of building, benediction,
Measuring love and money
Ways of slow dying.
The day spent hunting pig
Or holding a garden-party,
Hours giving evidence
Or birth, advance
On death equally slowly.
And saying so to some
Means nothing; others it leaves
Nothing to be said.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 21, 2004.
This was a nice thread to read... Proof to me that Christ's Body of believers is not caught up in any one church. Christ is working with us where we are !
I believe that both Gail and Gillian belong to Him : )
-- (faith01@myway.com), February 21, 2004.
bumpp
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), May 14, 2004.
Fixed and Restored. Looks like Gillian hasn't come back since the attacks though...
-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), May 21, 2004.