O
Oberon
Guest
It makes more sense to me.
Which does? The Catholic point of view, or the Protestant one?
It makes more sense to me.
This is about as close as Christians ever come to acknowledging the feminine divine. As Oberon correctly points out, protestant denominations tend not even to have this.And naturally we can only be redeemed by the perfect blood sacrifice, the sacrifice of the innocent lamb of God, Jesus.
And interestingly, Mary his mother, being innocent of original sin as well, is called our co-redeemer.
Men have feminine qualities, just as women have masculine ones. This, however, no more acknowledges the divine feminine than it makes an all-male community organization admit women. I don't know what kind of religious services, if any, you attend; but when was the last time you heard Christian clergy refer to God as She?Jesus has no feminine qualities?
Men have feminine qualities, just as women have masculine ones. This, however, no more acknowledges the divine feminine than it makes an all-male community organization admit women. I don't know what kind of religious services, if any, you attend; but when was the last time you heard Christian clergy refer to God as She?
nebby's in the right place, then.
The Gnostic texts generally date from the second century onwards. The Nag Hammadi texts themselves date from the third and fourth centuries, and they did not have much of a wider impact on the Christian world, as partially can be seen by the fact they weren't mentioned at all by Church Councils when determining the Biblical canon.The excluded writings to which I refer appear to have been written well within the first century, and thus significantly predate the "canonization" of the Bible. These include gnostic writings, and the texts in the "Nag Hammadi library" that came to light only in the last century, such as the gospel of Mary (Magdalene), and the gospel of Thomas. The latter contains what is probably the oldest recorded account of words Jesus actually said; predates the 4 gospels of the Bible; and is credited as a source for the gospels of Matthew and Luke.
You're so right.
It does boggle the mind that seeming-rational people still want to argue about the minutia of a fairytale. I feel fortunate to have been spared this delusional state by my parents.
It would appear, then, that you put no stock in the logical premise outlined in the thread title, and therefore the discussion herein would be of no significance to you. Which does lead one to wonder... why are you posting in the thread, if not to ridicule other forum members?
I stated my opinion. Feel free to ignore it, if that is the highest imperative here. But know that I am not in awe of your illogic.
I stated my opinion. Feel free to ignore it, if that is the highest imperative here. But know that I am not in awe of your illogic.
Which does? The Catholic point of view, or the Protestant one?
In fairness, many of the mainline Protestant churches do pay homage to the Church Fathers, especially St. Augustine of Hippo. I think it's more a certain strain of Evangelicals who take Sola scriptura rather literally.