tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post6961905985040185707..comments2023-11-05T20:19:44.812+13:00Comments on Ambassador Watch: Pastor DebbyGavinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03060097218905523899noreply@blogger.comBlogger56125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-92089899493790636272007-02-11T13:51:00.000+13:002007-02-11T13:51:00.000+13:00Yes, I also believe there are a number of huge pro...Yes, I also believe there are a number of huge problems with the New Testament texts.<BR/><BR/>Besides the pagan notion of drinking the blood and eating the sacrifice, there is also a problem with the notion that God somehow, through the Holy Spirit, became the *natural* father of Christ.<BR/><BR/>This was the very sin which the fallen angels purportedly committed, bringing about the Nephthilim and resulting in the flood so as to cleanse all except Noah's family, who were the only clean (perfect) lineage.<BR/><BR/>The reality is that God could have generated Christ to have been born of Mary in a similar fashion to that which He used in creating Adam or Eve.<BR/><BR/>Then there is the equally horrific notion that God needed to be appeased with a blood sacrifice - that of His very son. Sacrificing their own children was one of the worst pagan sins. I have a problem believing that God would practice the very sins that He abhors.Realityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16593971656553572775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-12341617679002540462007-02-11T10:06:00.000+13:002007-02-11T10:06:00.000+13:00"Oooh... Hit a nerve didn't I?"No, not even close...."Oooh... Hit a nerve didn't I?"<BR/><BR/>No, not even close. You would be better off, however, if you hadn't switched your allegiance from one religious charlatan to other.<BR/><BR/>"Argued like a good Evangelical pastor."<BR/><BR/>Guess again.<BR/><BR/>"Better said..'there is no real evidence to support their hypothesis....to me.'"<BR/><BR/>Or anyone else. Externally the historical testimony is overwhelming that St. Paul wrote the letters that have his name on them. Internally there are no textual or factual or theological problems that would call into question the Pauline authorship of the pastoral epistles, and stylistic differences are easily accounted for by the fact that St. Paul used amanuenses and the fact the authors do not have just a single homogeneous style of writing. But such are the flimsy threads on which modern scholars rest the massive weight of their pseudepigraphal theories.<BR/><BR/>"I had been a devout fundamentalist for decades."<BR/><BR/>There's your problem.<BR/><BR/>"Paul is the one who gives us the details on how to keep the Passover"<BR/><BR/>No he doesn't. He presents details about the Eucharist or Lord's Supper. The Armstrongist idea (not exclusively Armstrongist, of course) that it was an annual paschal festival that he was describing has no basis in the biblical text or in early Christian documents.<BR/><BR/>"Paul did not write most of the books that are attributed to him."<BR/><BR/>Yes, many people are of that opinion, even though there are far from adequate reasons for it.<BR/><BR/>"Then you learn that there are virtually none of the NT books exist prior to 200 AD."<BR/><BR/>Then you had a teacher who should be sued for malpractice. If virtually none of the New Testament books existed prior to 200 A.D., how did the Fathers of the second century manage to quote and refer to so many of them? How could Marcion have bowdlerised and truncated the New Testament books circa 150 A.D. if most of them didn't exist?<BR/><BR/>"There are just bits and pieces of books until after Nicea in 325 AD."<BR/><BR/>Oh, are you referring to surviving manuscripts from prior to 324 A.D.? Well, it's hardly surprising that most of the papyrus manuscripts of ancient times have decayed to bits. That's just what papyrus does in most climates. Paper and vellum are much more durable, which is why we no longer write on papyrus. But if you are seriously arguing that the loss of ancient manuscripts prior to 325 A.D. is a good reason to postulate that the early Christian writings were falsified at or after Nicaea, then I would suggest you not offer such an argument to serious scholars of ancient texts unless you want to risk getting laughed out of the room.<BR/><BR/>"The real Jesus would never have offered is flesh and blood to his disciples."<BR/><BR/>Well, if St. Paul may never have existed, what reason do you have to believe there ever was a "real Jesus"? Anyone so cavalier about historical evidence as you are should have no trouble believing there never was such a person as Jesus of Nazareth.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, I'm massively unimpressed with your approach to ancient Christian historical writings. You find in them a doctrine that you personally just can't believe would have been taught by Jesus, so you opt for a humongous conspiracy theory to explain away the texts that refer to Jesus' teachings that you don't like.<BR/><BR/>"That is so pagan and so anti-Jewish."<BR/><BR/>Well, history is pretty clear that the Jewish teaching authority early on rejected Christian doctrine as false, so the fact that Christian doctrine is not the same as Jewish doctrine proves nothing about whether or not Jesus really said what His disciples said He said.<BR/><BR/>"It is right out of Mithraism."<BR/><BR/>Malarkey. People have been making far too much of the few and remote resemblances between Christian belief and Mithraic belief. Similarity does not prove a genetic origin, and there is absolutely no evidence that any Christian doctrine originated in or was borrowed from any pagan cult. You are welcome to present such evidence, if you have any, just as I welcomed Robert Thiel to present his proof that distinctively Armstrongist doctrines existed in the early centuries of Christianity. You won't be any more successful than Robert Thiel was, but you may try all the same.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-46780525134057964532007-02-11T05:13:00.000+13:002007-02-11T05:13:00.000+13:00I had been a devout fundamentalist for decades. I...I had been a devout fundamentalist for decades. I had believed that almost every word of the NT was inspired. But then I began to really struggle with the issue of the Christian Passover, i.e. the Lord's Supper the Eucharist. Paul is the one who gives us the details on how to keep the Passover, Paul's writing supply even more detail on how to keep the Passover then the synoptic gospels. <BR/><BR/>We do read that Jesus observed the Passover in the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. But in the Gospel of John there is no Passover observance nor is there "the bread and wine". The Gospel of John contradicts the other three gospels. I came to the conclusion gospel of John does not augment the others, it stands alone. It is the authors version of what he or she saw. The other three gospels have a different and contradictory story. <BR/><BR/>Who is right... John or Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul?<BR/><BR/>Then you learn the many of the epistles attributed to Paul are not thought to be written by Paul. Wikipedia is just one source. There are many many sources that say the same thing. Paul did not write most of the books that are attributed to him. " ...there is little or no dispute about the authorship of Romans, First Corinthians, Second Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, First Thessalonians, and Philemon." But all the others were written by other folks. <BR/><BR/>Then you learn that there are virtually none of the NT books exist prior to 200 AD. There are just bits and peaces of books until after Nicea in 325 CE.<BR/><BR/>My conclusions are that the Church was taken over by Orthodoxy and Paul was the foil used to do that. The real Jesus would never have offered is flesh and blood to his disciples. That is so pagan and so anti-Jewish. It is right out of Mithraism. <BR/><BR/>Do a study on Mithraism... much of Orthodox Christianity is right out of second and third century Mithraism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-32479347256793469282007-02-10T15:58:00.000+13:002007-02-10T15:58:00.000+13:00... oh yes"original sin" is an orthodox Christian ...... oh yes<BR/><BR/>"original sin" is an orthodox Christian doctrine. It is not found in the Tanakh and certainly not believed by the Jewish community that owns the books of the OT.<BR/><BR/>Again you interpret the OT as a good Evangelcial would. You folks don't own the OT, those aren't your books. You have trouble enough trying to defend your NT doctrinal positions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-32105785917372598022007-02-10T15:48:00.000+13:002007-02-10T15:48:00.000+13:00"But then your link to the New Age kook Starbird r..."But then your link to the New Age kook Starbird really says it all."<BR/><BR/>Oooh... Hit a nerve didn't I? <BR/><BR/>Argued like a good Evangelical pastor. Well done... ;)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-57677712609045525032007-02-10T10:37:00.000+13:002007-02-10T10:37:00.000+13:00Saac's son says I am yankin' chains. I thinks we a...Saac's son says I am yankin' chains. I thinks we all does in our own sort of way.<BR/><BR/>I barely made it passed grade school, so my spellin' may not be the best.<BR/><BR/><BR/>KentuckianAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-84243786554053932722007-02-10T02:27:00.000+13:002007-02-10T02:27:00.000+13:00"Most scholars believe that Paul was not the autho..."Most scholars believe that Paul was not the author of either I Timothy or Ephesians."<BR/><BR/>Wrong, "many" scholars believe that. "Most" of them do not. In any case, regardless of what your anonymous scholars may or may not think, there is no real evidence to support their hypothesis that some of St. Paul's letters are pseudepigraphs.<BR/><BR/>Oh, and while Wikipedia is a convenient source, it's not an authority on anything, since it is written by any schmuck with a computer keyboard and internet access.<BR/><BR/>"And there is strong evidence that Paul never existed."<BR/><BR/>Right. There's even stronger evidence that St. Paul did exist. "Most" scholars believe that he did, and I'm not aware of a single respectable scholar who doubts the existence of St. Paul. Apparently you're only interested in determining truth by a majority vote when the majority allegedly supports your own opinions.<BR/><BR/>"It is 'Paul' who places woman in a governmental hierarchy that is nonexistent in the Old Testament. There is no teaching like this in the Tanakh."<BR/><BR/>So what? There's also no teaching in the Old Testament that Jesus is the Messiah, making it irrelevant that, according to you, Mary Magdalene was his wife or mistress or concubine or whatever. Anyway, in the Old Testament we find the doctrine that wives are to be ruled over by their husbands, that Eve played a signal role in the original sin, that women's menstruation is ceremonially unclean, making it necessary for most adult women to be sequestered away from the community for a week or more every month, and that giving birth to a boy makes a mother unclean for 40 days while giving birth to a girl makes a mother unclean for 80 days. Oh, and did you know that in the Jewish Temple only men were allowed to be priests, and women could not go into the Temple courts as far as men could? You're living in a dream world if you think the Old Testament is easier on women than the New Testament.<BR/><BR/>But then your link to the New Age kook Starbird really says it all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-74751781067641313972007-02-09T20:00:00.000+13:002007-02-09T20:00:00.000+13:00"The Evangelicals force their women into a societa..."The Evangelicals force their women into a societal roll defined by a 'Paul'; based on words in letters that 'Paul' never wrote."<BR/><BR/>Amen, brother.<BR/><BR/>You'd think that God Almighty, if giving mankind a book which is His absolute word, would make sure that at least it was an honest one.<BR/><BR/>Of course, peeps on the side of the camp that claim it to be without flaw, will explain away it's obvious flaws. It's their job.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-71965437377995390842007-02-09T16:14:00.000+13:002007-02-09T16:14:00.000+13:00Anonymous said... "Although there are many women t...Anonymous said...<BR/><BR/> "Although there are many women that know more then ministers out there in religion land, I thought in the end time there was supposed to be prophetess not priestess."<BR/><BR/>You are correct... in recent years there has been a lot good research, thought, and writing on the "divine famine"... Both in Judaism and Christianity.<BR/><BR/>There is a distinct feminine presence in the Godly realm, and there are most certainly very high ranking divine feminine beings. The "Shekinah" in the OT is feminine. The Holy Spirit is probably feminine. And of course there is Mary Magdalene; who I believe was Jesus wife, and who I believe was asked to lead the preaching of the gospel of the Kingdom the to gentiles.<BR/><BR/>At the end of the age many believe there will be a restoration of a proper balance between the feminine and masculine within the church.<BR/><BR/>Hope so :)<BR/><BR/>Please go to http://www.margaretstarbird.net/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-48556281682368439092007-02-09T15:25:00.000+13:002007-02-09T15:25:00.000+13:00Although there are many women that know more then ...Although there are many women that know more then ministers out there in religion land, I thought in the end time there was supposed to be prophetess not priestess.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-47337130898671368272007-02-09T14:57:00.000+13:002007-02-09T14:57:00.000+13:00Most scholars believe that Paul was not the author...Most scholars believe that Paul was not the author of either I Timothy or Ephesians. <BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostle_Paul<BR/><BR/>And there is strong evidence that Paul never existed. <BR/><BR/>Both I Timothy and Ephesians are examples of social engineering by the early orthodox church fathers. It is "Paul" who places woman in a governmental hierarchy that is nonexistent in the Old Testament. There is no teaching like this in the Tanakh. <BR/><BR/>The Evangelicals force their women into a societal roll defined by a "Paul"; based on words in letters that "Paul" never wrote.<BR/><BR/>1 Tim 2:11-12 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.<BR/><BR/>and<BR/><BR/>Eph 5:22-24 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-71488714668219420452007-02-08T20:12:00.000+13:002007-02-08T20:12:00.000+13:00Kentuckian:Some may read your assessment of Herber...Kentuckian:<BR/><BR/>Some may read your assessment of Herbert W. Armstrong and assume that you are just yanking chains.<BR/><BR/>However, based on your spelling proficiency, I believe your posts to be sincere.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-48755766539425869582007-02-08T18:39:00.000+13:002007-02-08T18:39:00.000+13:00More power to Debby! May God's grace shine upon h...More power to Debby! May God's grace shine upon her!<BR/><BR/>I am glad to see the Armstrongites in all the splinter cults upset! They deserve to be upset. I also take great delight in seeing those 'New Covenant' Christians who have taken their Armstrongite judgmental attitudes to the Lutherans Misery Synod, Presbyterian and Baptist churches where they are now flinging righteous indignation as they rip Debby apart.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-13422847693374026382007-02-08T17:27:00.000+13:002007-02-08T17:27:00.000+13:00"Jewish woman are viewed differently in the Jewish..."Jewish woman are viewed differently in the Jewish community."<BR/><BR/>Oh really? Would that be the same Jewish community that believed that a man who taught his daughter Torah had done something as wicked as teaching her to be a prostitute, and that taught men to give thanks to God that He had not made them women?<BR/><BR/>You seem to be enamored of Gnostic writings like the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary, but for some reason you think it is Christianity that espouses misogyny, even though the Gospel of Thomas insists that women can only be saved if they are spiritually transformed by Jesus into men.<BR/><BR/>Sorry, anonymous, but you're living in a fantasy world. I urge you to look at early Christian and Jewish history with open eyes, and give up your quasi-Gnostic fairy tales. I may shatter your faith to find out, but really, Dan Brown's book is a work of fiction, not fact.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-37633737655289920532007-02-08T16:47:00.000+13:002007-02-08T16:47:00.000+13:00Jared Olar said..."...so you can see what sort of ...Jared Olar said...<BR/><BR/>"...so you can see what sort of things this document claims Jesus secretly told Mary Magdalene but did not tell any of the apostles..."<BR/><BR/>My good friend, there were no apostles. The office of apostle is a fabrication of; the writers of the synoptic gospels, the folks who wrote Paul's epistles, and the writers of the book of Acts.<BR/><BR/>The writer of the gospel of John never uses the word "apostle" nor will you find the word in the gospel of Thomas or the gospel of Mary. That is because Jesus had no apostles.<BR/><BR/>The office of "apostle" was created by the good orthodox church fathers to give themselves legitimacy and to control the flock. You see, they were in the line of "apostolic succession".<BR/><BR/>It was also largely done to keep woman in their proper place...<BR/><BR/>It is "Paul" who defines the role of Christian woman. No one else in the Bible does it in this way. No one. Jewish woman are viewed differently in the Jewish community. Christian women are kept under the thumbs (or foot) of their husbands. <BR/><BR/>There is none of "Paul's" teaching about woman in the Old Testament... no such teaching in the Tanakh. <BR/><BR/>It is only "Paul" who defines how Christian woman are to be treated. No one else does, and "Paul" probably never existed. <BR/><BR/>You call it social engineering...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-38301387790394162972007-02-08T16:45:00.000+13:002007-02-08T16:45:00.000+13:00They should give "Pastor Debby" a dog collar so sh...They should give "Pastor Debby" a dog collar so she can chase her flock along.<BR/><BR/>Will she preach a touchy-feely message designed for lefties?<BR/><BR/>We will watch her progress with interest.<BR/><BR/>PilgrimAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-13411256332721836612007-02-08T16:36:00.000+13:002007-02-08T16:36:00.000+13:00Herbert Armstrong would not approve of Pastor Debb...Herbert Armstrong would not approve of Pastor Debby.<BR/><BR/>Did he not believe that women should not preach in church?<BR/><BR/>Herbert knew what was best.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Baptist BenAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-87871329260479236902007-02-08T16:25:00.000+13:002007-02-08T16:25:00.000+13:00I am surprized to see that many people on this blo...I am surprized to see that many people on this blogsite do not hold verry high opinions of Brother Herbert Armstrong, of late and beloved memory,and are dissrespecful towards him.<BR/><BR/>We will pray that the Lord will restore your attitudes to wholeness.Brother Herbert was a tower of strength to thousands of lost soles out thier in the world.<BR/>He gave them hope for the future.<BR/>He spoke about the Lord coming in the clouds of Heaven.Praise be his name.<BR/><BR/>God bless you all and restore you to wholeness.<BR/><BR/>KentuckianAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-23825858351979161092007-02-08T13:21:00.000+13:002007-02-08T13:21:00.000+13:00yeah
if HWA had never existed there wouldn't be a...yeah<br /><br />if HWA had never existed there wouldn't be an army dedicated to smearing him and his actions and, therefore, no one to ordain "Pastor Debby"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-2322086928484550172007-02-08T11:57:00.000+13:002007-02-08T11:57:00.000+13:00Just think, if Herbert Armstrong had never existed...Just think, if Herbert Armstrong had never existed Debby would never have been ordained as a Pastor.<br /><br />We owe a lot to Herbert and may his memory remain sacred for many years to come.He was an upright and religious man, concerned for the world in which he lived.<br /><br />KentuckianAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-34799857542221472372007-02-08T09:25:00.000+13:002007-02-08T09:25:00.000+13:00After reading all I can about Gnosticism, I've had...After reading all I can about Gnosticism, I've had to drastically change my views.<br /><br />Gnosticism has taken many turns just as have Christianity, Judaism and other -isms. Some true believers were thrown into the category of 'heretics' along with various non-orthodox believers with many being relegated as Gnostics. There is considerable clarification of this process in newer research showing that non-orthodox views (such as those held by, Arius, Marcion etc.) were clearly in the majority while orthodox teachings (such as the Trinity, Immortality of the Soul etc.) were definitely in the minority.<br /><br />Follow these exciting battles and changes during early history in the book, "When Jesus Became God" by Richard E Rubenstein. There is also a wealth of information in many of the books listed on Gavin's Ambassador Watch Booklist like those by Bart Ehrman.<br /><br />In addition to this amazing history, I am just now learning much more about the relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene from new books, "Death of the Messiah" volumes 1 and 2 by Raymond E. Brown.<br /><br />I think I am beginning to see why Mary Magdalene has been demonized so terribly - even equated with prostitution and demon possession. Then it is likely no small coincidence that horrible stories like those in books such as "The Da Vinci Code" have suddenly flourished and continue to malign her.<br /><br />There is some interesting discussion regarding the concept that Mary Magdalene is actually the personage hidden in the phrase "The Disciple that Jesus Loved". It is in no way a romantic relationship, but certainly helps to explain how this phrase came to be used and how it obscures the fact that there really were no disciples present when Christ died. That clears up a huge question I have always had - Why didn't the disciples claim his body instead of it being Joseph of Arimathea and Niccodemus? I found beginning information on this topic at this website:<br /><br />http://ramon_k_jusino.tripod.com:80/magdalene.html<br /><br />Happy reading.Realityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16593971656553572775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-9353719054334777902007-02-08T03:14:00.000+13:002007-02-08T03:14:00.000+13:00Since anonymous only quoted from the preface of th...Since anonymous only quoted from the preface of the Gospel of Mary, I thought I'd share with everyone a few quotes from the rest of that document, so you can see what sort of things this document claims Jesus secretly told Mary Magdalene but did not tell any of the apostles:<br /><br />"Again [the soul] came to the third Power, which is called Ignorance. It questioned the soul saying, 'Where are you going? In wickedness are you bound. But you are bound; do not judge!' And the soul said, 'Why do you judge me although I have not been judged? I was bound though I have not bound. I was not recognised. But I have recognised that the All is being dissolved, both the earthly things and the heavenly.' When the soul had overcome the third Power, it went upwards and saw the fourth Power, which took seven forms. The first form is Darkness, the second Desire, the third Ignorance, the fourth is the Excitement of Death, the fifth is the Kingdom of the Flesh, and sixth is the Foolish Wisdom of Flesh, the seventh is the Wrathful Wisdom. These are the seven Powers of Wrath. They ask the soul, 'Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?' The soul answered and said, 'What binds me has been slain, and what surrounds me has been overcome, and my desire has been ended, and ignorance has died. In a world I was released from a world, and in a type from a heavenly type, and from the fetter of oblivion which is transient. From this time on will I attain to the rest of the time, of the season, of the aeon, in silence.'"<br /><br />As you can see, this is all fairly typical Gnostic doctrine, delineating the spiritual path by which the Gnostic soul supposedly escapes this filthy material universe, sheds the enslavement of the human body, and ascends past the Archons or Powers to return to the ineffable Father who did not create the universe. The Gospel of Mary is obviously a Gnostic work and has no historical value for reconstruction what Jesus really taught to His disciples.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-90534288613350255612007-02-08T02:59:00.000+13:002007-02-08T02:59:00.000+13:00"Acts is filled with stories of person who may nev..."Acts is filled with stories of person who may never have existed, i.e. Paul."<br /><br />Paul may never have existed, eh? You realise, I hope, that by saying such things your credibility just sank to the level of your average Flat Earther.<br /><br />"The Gospel of Mary did not pass through the Orthodox censors and the all male priesthood at Nicea..."<br /><br />Big whoop, neither did any other Christian or pseudo-Christian scripture pass through any censors at Nicaea. If you knew anything about the history of Christianity, you'd know that the Council of Nicaea did not have anything to do with the canon of scripture, which in any event had pretty much reached a settled state well before Nicaea.<br /><br />But then if you actually think an obvious Gnostic forgery like the Gospel of Mary is genuine, whereas St. Paul may never have existed, it's unsurprising that you'd know so little about the Council of Nicaea and the development of the Christian canon of scripture.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-11740858660080649652007-02-07T19:15:00.000+13:002007-02-07T19:15:00.000+13:00Why does is sound bogus?
Is just that you are not...Why does is sound bogus?<br /><br />Is just that you are not use to reading the words of this gospel?<br /><br />What makes this less inspired then the book of Acts?<br /><br />Acts is filled with stories of person who may never have existed, i.e. Paul.<br /><br />The Gospel of Mary did not pass through the Orthodox censors and the all male priesthood at Nicea...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-15454608103857837372007-02-07T19:09:00.000+13:002007-02-07T19:09:00.000+13:00that sounds so bogus that it's not funny .
I gues...that sounds so bogus that it's not funny .<br /><br />I guess that's why some are so keen to get it included in the list of "inspired scripture"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com