Are 'Christians' allowed to Disagree with 'Jesus' and still be called 'Christians'?

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Jesus might have been married though. 40 gospels that surface from everywhere say so.

And in either case, what was the role of John in the life of Lord Jesus?

What the Churches offer us to follow, is insufficient to say the least.

A descendant of Jesus coming from the clouds (from another planet) could change the things forever. After all, Jesus is still alive and well up there in heaven (space) is he not? 1980+ years are quite a bit, even for the son of God, to stay on one cloud.

I am not talking of the Second Coming that remains a future. I am taking of a more certain action of God NOW, similar to the action during Moses' exodus and Noah's flood. Because we are approaching similar magnitude events. Someone must save us from ourselves (or at least some minimal number of peoples) if that someone on hi cares for continuation of humankind.



The role of the manchild and 144,000 in revelation 12 - 14 has yet to be determined what practical terms it will take.

a reply to: 2012newstart

Perhaps Jesus' issues with marriage reflected his own marriage(s). What if he went to John the Baptist and had his former self die symbolically or liturgically, so he could leave his former family and remarry? There are awfully many Mary's in these stories, and he is very keen on criticising the rulings of divorce and remarriage, hey, even marriage itself.

In regards of your post below. (I did not know this)
To become a Christian, all you need to do is believe that Jesus died for our sins? You don't need to do anything else? Cool!

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Sigismundus

You have a very superficial and distorted understanding of what Jesus taught. All one must do to be a Christian is believe that Christ died for our sins. The question then becomes, does the said Christian abide in Christ?

Humans are allowed to have free willed opinions and disagreements. Whether you take actions against a way you know is wrong, is on you.

originally posted by: TheCretinHop
Humans are allowed to have free willed opinions and disagreements. Whether you take actions against a way you know is wrong, is on you.

"Man can do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills"

Arthur Schopenhauer

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

There are 3-4 Mary, one of them the Mother of Jesus, and another one Mary Magdalene.
Whether the marriage feast in Cana Galilee was the marriage of Jesus himself? Why so many gospels who are not "forgeries" of later centuries, would speak of the wife of Jesus and name her explicitly as Mary Magdalene?
I would not repeat the reasons given in previous posts and threads, because they go as far as why Constantine being pagan chief priest, stamped main rules of the 3rd-4th century Church. Including the ruling on the books which one was right and which one was not. Ironically, all that missed the wife, were stamped as proven, the rest - as heretic no matter they were more (and we still discover ewer ones that were not al burned). That fact alone comes to tell us how unbiased the process of imperial approval was.

The book of Revelation was approved on another council some 100 years later in 5th century. It contains major characters that are a future event, not past. Volumes have been written since then. Especially Augustine who rewrites the Millenium and thus makes it theoretically impossible an earthly kingdom (democracy we would say) to achieve the bottom line of the Gospel - peace, food, shelter, care for the sick, love above all, fair share of the money among the community. Subsequently, that were never goals of "christian rulers".

Augustine WAS WRONG. Let say it clearly and loudly. He cut and paste thru the timeline of the Revelation. It is not a dogma and never was. All subsequent church fathers drew from Augustine, in both Western and Eastern traditions. They were all wrong. Millennium is present there, and if you cut it off, you cut off the Revelation altogether.

The main character in the center of the book Revelation in chapter 12 is the Woman and the Child. It is a time to define the Manchild as not Jesus Christ, because the story is put down on the scrolls some 100-200 years after Jesus Christ. Moreover, baby Jesus was not taken up to heaven, rather grew up on Earth to 33. Dragon didn't appear afterwards, as Revelation tells us he would. There is an urgent need for the Churches to redefine what was sidelined for centuries politics, and to declare there is Someone to appear (not necessarily to come) and that someone is preceding the Second Coming. The Manchild, together with the 144,000 close friends who seem to have different mission than his. His birth doesn't happen even on the surface of the planet earth, the birth happens in clouds, on orbit, in near space, logically on a spaceship. The modern churches must understand in modern way the ancient texts and to be up to their duties. No one wants to take their authority in deciding spiritual matters. But no one wants to see the scenario of Galileo repeated over and over again. Last time the Church did it wrong, it took several centuries to come to the starting point.

I see another pause in prophecy, similar to the pause of Daniel's 69th to 70th week that prolongs already 2000 or so years. I see the pause between the rapture of manchild and the casting down the dragon to earth. That pause is determined by the heaven-space war of archangel Michael vs the dragon and their supportive angels, a multi galactic war that will take its time. However short it might seem from earth (because the time flows different here and in Andromeda) still it will be something longer than expected.

First of all, we will witness the selection of the 144,000 and the birth (or may in spiritual way, the anointing) of the manchild on spaceship, and his sneak departure to "heaven" via hyperjump may be. We are fed of sci fi to imagine how that will happen technically, pretty simple. It is core written in Revelation 12, if you carefully estimate where the woman is at the moment of the birth, between the sun, the moon and with stars around. Not on the surface of earth or any other celestial body.

The dragon (draconians) won't attack the Earth at that time! The flee of the Woman in the desert won't happen at that time! The dragons will fight the angelic forces of Archangel Michael for quite some time, that might be quite longer or shorter, depending on the earth's time flow that we don't know how fast it flows compared to the rest of the universe, not compared to each next solar year/orbit. During that time, the Woman is not persecuted, she is free on planet Earth (Churches may be enjoy popularity). Perhaps that is the promised era of peace in Fatima.

Let not forget that there is a Chastisement promised before that era of peace. If we open previous chapters of the Revelation, we see SEVERAL not one celestial bodies impact the Earth, during the Trumps. Is it to happen imminent? I don't know and nobody knows.

The Churches should stand for what is reasonably right, stop the outdated paradigms, and start understanding in the cosmic era with more than one team of ET. They cannot pretend they do not know anything, or that all are good ones, or all are evil ones. It is no more enough knowledge when we have bigger knowledge than that on internet.

The reluctance of the Churches and especially RCC to speak on the subject means only one - they are already in contact with certain group of ET not necessarily the best one, and they do not want to expose that to the masses. Regardless of their narrow minded position, the truth will prevail, by the ET directly speaking to the masses. Call it alien invasion if you will so. Call it alien salvation, in case of major celestial impact coming our way, or more probably in case of a world war coming fast.

Jesus had descendants, they are likely not born on Earth, but in the place where He dwelled for already 1980 years as resurrected Lord served by the Hosts. Those descendants are honored as true sons and daughters of Lord Jesus and perhaps have very prestigious places among foreign civilizations who ACCEPTED the Lord Jesus, and did not kill him as the earth did.

And those descendants are coming to tell us the truth of the life of Jesus Christ, that "no books could contain" said apostle John the beloved disciple at the end of his gospel. How could we have been so stupid, blind and unaware, to understand what is written in plain text? Marriage, Angels, Clouds, Ascension. New Earth spoken of Peter, along with New Heaven (new stars' configuration seen from the new earth). The time is now for making our minds to accept the inevitable. No matter if it will be given a chance for 3 days, or 30 years.

a reply to: 2012newstart

Mary Magdalene is supposedly the prostitute who came to be forgiven by Jesus during the dinner.

Citation please?

Mary Magdalene was never named as a prostitute in the Bible. She, supposedly had 7 demons that had "gone out".

Luke 8:1
Soon afterwards, He began going around from one city and village to another, proclaiming and preaching the kingdom of God. The twelve were with Him,
2 and also some women who had been healed of evil spirits and sicknesses: Mary who was called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out

a reply to: windword

OK I deleted that sentence in 10 min after my first post, but you were fast enough to copy it, thank you so we can clarify it. Yes, I understand that if Jesus married Magdalene in Cana, she could not be possibly the prostitute who appeared much later.

With the appointment of the 144,000 preselected servants of the Lamb, the Churches will not keep the current status quo no matter what. In the era of nuclear blasts, may be not allout war, celestial impacts, and shadowing spaceships, there wil be changes in the churches too. I don't know the exact way or sequence. But I can understand so little to know the 144,000 are selected to do a special mission (different from that of the manchild himself who would be taken up above). And that mission has not been done by the priesthood that pretends to be in the image of those 144,000. If it were we would have had God's kingdom on earth by now for those 1980 years, and we did not. No matter the Church was ruling most of those centuries, with political, spiritual and all kinds of power. We are not going to return the past, but to create the future. The Church must be willing to collaborate in order to find its place in the new arrangement made directly by the Lamb, by the Manchild, and by the 144,000. The sooner the better. I understand before the ships are here, it is premature to expect the Church will take any decisive stance. But at least she could have worked silently on the matter. Many f the things I wrote in these threads, are the direct result of the reluctance of the RCC to change an inch, no matter popes were changed and administrations were renewed. Well, I don't have 2-3 lives to spend one of them in expectation something will change. I will tell boldly what must be told in public.

As for example, why the Fatima secret that most likely concerns extraterrestrial presence in Russia, that will boost her to achieve political gains, is still kept a secret. (reread JPII in Fulda with that in mind, it matches perfectly). If the ET of the RCC and the ET in Russia are different, or even opposite and hostile between each other, why not the pope to go and negotiate with them DIRECTLY? You usually negotiate with someone whom you don't agree with, with the enemy. Not with someone whom you would invite on a dinner. And, those are not the little green men (grey) who were reportedly landed in USA. Neither the Aldebarans who reportedly helped Nazi Germany. Those are others, among the hundreds of races already in contact. We have blond aliens human-looking that no one takes seriously, because they are too much like us and you won't recognize him or her if sit next to them in the airplane or the subway. You wil think you sit next to a person from Norway. Those are things that internet is full about, and the Churches are mum. Pope Francis said instead of that, two phrases: baptize Martians" and "beings from the Universe". Good, but not good enough. 3 years for two phrases and a couple of interviews of priests.

When, if not now before the promised Fatima event this year?
Christianity must go back to its roots when Jesus Christ walked the earth. It will, but may be not with majority with today's pharisees. They become the greatest obstacle before moving on a smooth orbit, enough in time. Certainly everything wil be clear if tomorrow we have ET public contact. Is it what is expected by the churchmen? The ET may come to stay, or may come to save. If they come to stay, if we have 30 more years to some cataclysmic event, then the things I am talking about in these two posts will come to materialization. You will have a renowned church with 144,000 direct servicemen of the Lamb who will make the difference. The other scenario, is you have 3 days to pack your things (better leave everything behind) and to board rescue spaceships, before the sun /nibiru burns out everything on the surface. I don't know which one or a third middle way will happen in reality. Will for example WW3 be allowed to happen on limited scale beforehand, in order for the majority people to see and believe. Otherwise they wouldn't bother to move even if they see spaceships.


Those are all things that matter for Christianity and Christians today. They'd better be spoken laud from the rooftops. There s no more time to stay silent, to be afraid, or to think to say you make a sin. Enough of those medieval sinful books.

a reply to: 2012newstart

It's cool.

It's a common error that keeps getting perpetuated, and I don't know why, other than for the purpose of disparaging propaganda against the female followers of Jesus.

a reply to: 2012newstart

I like to see the marital status of Jesus vs. Church dogma about him being single-- as a wager between the Pope and mr. Devil about this. The Pope went all in on him being single, bummer, the Devil won, and since then the church has been a breeding ground for all kinds of weirdness, since all Catholic popes were forbidden to have sex or have children, and all monks and nuns, deacons and priests (including cardinals and popes) etc. still swear themselves to Hell with their "chastity". Go mr. Devil and baaaad Constantine!

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

there were popes with illegal children some of them made later cardinals (Cesare Borgia, son of pope Alexander the 6th, who posed as model for "Jesus" famous painting). There were many religious who broke their woes, having encounters with either sex. That didn't happen only in the last decades and only with children, that made up the scandals in the civil society. If we are talking of homosexuality in the civil society, let it be well known it was not a secret thing done throughout the centuries in monasteries. What I mean is not to deal here with long lists of sins, that the religious themselves should update from time to time every...100 years at least.

What I mean is what JESUS HIMSELF HAD in His real life, as an example to all of us. If He was married, as so many books say so, then let it be known. If He had intimate relation (although not proven to be sexual yet) with John, let it be known the Church supports such relations. Because the Church declares to follow Jesus as her Head and she being the body (or bride). Then one should assume the bride would like to know what exactly did her Bridegroom, and not to ban every next book that appears to say otherwise against the conveniently established rotten status quo.

The Church(es) either have a long term vision of the future of humankind, or they do not. If they have, we are not told of it. The enfdless expectation of the Second Coming is something preached throughout those 1980 years after Ascension, but at one time silently exchanged with the "earthly kingdom" around 5th century when the still one church gained control on Roman empire.

It is a time the Church acknowledges main road signs in the future, one of that is to acknowledge the Revelation of Manchild as possible descendant of Jesus. There are already prophecies of a Christian monarch to rule Europe, so many and so old that are now well buried under new stuff like Fatima and secularism. I do not support return of monarchy though.

The Church(es) have to acknowledge we are not alone in the Universe, and that Jesus after Ascending "in a cloud" had to go somewhere to another better planet, where He could sit on a throne (something material not spiritual), that would substitute the painted clouds. We have already reached the level of clouds and there are no angels there. The Church(es) have to acknowledge there could be endless worlds that have already accepted Jesus as their Lord, while there could be many others who did not. Where is the proof? IN THE BIBLE. The Church elders should not only read Ezekiel 1 for themselves, but to explain it in plain language to the people.

Instead, they continue to talk of endless "sins" and call for some personal "conversion", as if the faithful didn't do anything valuable a their lives except to sin and to repent in confession. Instead of such rhetoric and paradigm, the elders urgently must start the Conversion of the Church(es) themselves.

A good start would be to appoint NEW PEOPLE, young and devote, who would oversee the Church affairs. What we see, at least in the Roman Catholic Church, is endless fight between cardinals and bishops for prestigious places, money etc. May be the worst crisis after 15th century that brought up the Reformation. The Roman Church is not a leader in the process of renovation of the world, it presents an obstacle as of today. Hope it will somehow change tomorrow. For 3 years of papacy it didn't happen, not in the visible and sensible size that the common people want to see and feel. The reform of Francis drags feet and you don't have to be insider or even catholic to see that.

One may say, what I am concerned of Rome, there are another 1.5 bln Christians who do not belong to RCC? Yes but they are quite much divided, and the biggest congregations among them are no less fundamental on the issues above. Exceptions exist of course. You can hardly have a religious world being renovated if you double cross Rome, in the current situation. Unless a meteorite strikes it from above.

If we face a new galactic updated view of the same faith, brought by a descendant of Jesus from space, I doubt it would be merciful towards today's practices of the Churches (all of them). But there might be people among the elders who would like to align themselves with the Son of the Son of God. I am pretty much sure Jesus himself won't come now. But he is alive, healthy, and could send his son to deal with his church that is doing everything contrary to the gospel for the good part of all those 1980 years after he left. If the world is meant to survive, and therefore a kind of Christianity to survive too. Not necessarily in today's structure that is not found in the Gospels, not even in the canonical ones.
I don't know if that will happen tomorrow or after another 100 years. But it doesn't matter so much the exact date. It matters the situation of the Church that is absolutely not ready for a Coming, be it the Second Coming or be it a coming of Jesus' descendant, envoy or angels.

Another more realistic perspective: When the nukes start raining, the Church will lose much if not all. Not because it will be direct hit (not to be ruled out though) but because its policy of 1980 years 15 centuries of which full uncontrolled rule over the Christendom, brought us to here. And because the survivors in underground cities will not remember with good the already past history of Churches and their leaders, who didn't tell them when the wolf came and dispersed them.

The very least the Church (Roman , others) could do now, is to explain what they know and we still don't in our majority. Perhaps there are such things, as of old Sumer texts, or hidden contacts with "angels". I and you may know of those things, but not the mass churchgoer who believes that by signing up for Sunday mass and check dropping he signs up his ticket to going to "heaven". The Churches have obligation towards the people they say they serve. Without meeting those obligations in real time, the Church structure is doomed to fail pretty soon. Not the Christianity that will survive, be it in underground bunkers or spaceships.

a reply to: 2012newstart

If we are to be talking about sexual issues as of today, the Catholic Church is among the strictest Churches with rules that saw little change over millenia. Yet the same Church is known for the biggest trespasses at the same time. Isn't it better to loosen the rules at least to the level of the Orthodox Churches, who allow up to 3 divorces and 4 marriages, and married priests?

When it comes to discuss homosexuality, fanatic catholics see the devil in the issue. I will not defend either side because "who am I to judge?" But let not be blind before Bible texts who speak cleary of friendships, such as between David and Jonathan, and also between Jesus and John. While that might not be example of actual sex, it is a good example what spiritual position the Church elders should take when dealing with millions people who did not choose their state.

Instead, the Catholics are permitted to fight only against abortion, and to determine their vote based on that single issue. Again, I am not arbiter, and I am against abortions as such. But let think seriously, who performs the abortions, aren't exactly the catholic girls who get pregnant underage, or catholic women for other reasons? Where is the education of the Catholic priests to PREVENT it? Where are the permitted drugs or condoms that are proven not to make abortion? Why doesn't the Church allow and promote that, along with natural planning of how many children one family is supposed to have? Indeed Francis said another remarkable phrase of "not multiplying as rabbits". Someone should have said it. Is it enough though? Who has interests of more millions children starving in poor countries? The Churches should take position on the uncontrolled multiplying in countries like Nigeria and India, and to be the ones who promote, not restrict, the usage of condoms and other means that do not make an abortions. It is a shame the world's biggest organization still doesn't find strength to say things long overdue.

The Catholic Church under pope Francis dedicated 2 full years and two Synods (the highest gathering after the Council) on the issue of remarried catholics and gay catholics. The "Casper agenda" of reforms, although having majority, was sidelined as demonic by fundamental websites and elders. They won, getting the mildest ruling that each case of divorced Catholic would be considered individually by the local bishop. Where s the difference with the status quo before the two synods? Indeed the German bishops went far ahead the rest, and sure they do in practice what they said to be done for the wider Church. But the whole world is not Germany. The same problems exist everywhere. How about the gays' issues, that were sacrificed, again, in the name of the so called "unity of the church"?

For what change are we speaking about, now 3 years after the election of pope Francis, if the smallest things that de facto exist, are not being changed or changed on personal case to case basis? How could we expect anything bigger than that, let say to declare new Gospel books are authentic and Jesus was married with kids? It is absurd to expect those people to do anything in that regard. No matter they know better than me all those ancient scrolls. They know and they wait, pretty much as in the movie "2012" when the cardinals leaded the crowd in praer until the dome of St Peter's fell on them all.

If many aged elders should be fired and new fresh minds to be appointed instead, let it be done without any further delay. It could be done pretty easily by appointing overwhelmingly new cardinalate with hundreds new people to oversee the entire church. One new cardinal for every diocese, but not the existing bishop who could be well into the system for decades. Sure there are skilled and devote people among the 1 billion, half of which are men. Let there be young and devote people into the ranks of RCC (and other churches) who do not have to be ordained in order to serve a better service than the existing apparatus.

I never talked on sexual issues, they pile up on top of others. For me it was always more important questions to preserve the life on the planet, to feed the hungry, the future of humankind. Not whether the devote husband should use condom in order to avoid making a new baby everytime of blessed sexual intercourse with his wife, blessed by the Church and Christ. It is a shame we reached to the point of dead end when the things should be said online in order for those elders to do the smallest things right. Perhaps their time ran out too. A Jesuit pope who finds himself incapable of doing any of these measures, is pretty much the last chance of the Catholic Church the oldest organization on the planet. May be too old to be reformed after all. Do we have Plan B? Fanatics would answer, Christ does not have Plan B, his only plan is called RCC. Well, Christ didn't do what the elders do or fail to do today, neither He created the historical structures of RCC. Perhaps the problem comes from top to bottom, not vice versus. Perhaps the blame should be put not on the divorced who want to feed their families, or the gays who did not choose to be born in that way. Perhaps the devil should not be sought in them, but in those who demonized them in the name of Jesus. In the same name 5 centuries ago same people and many others were burned alive. By the same kind of mentality that is not divine, rather demonic.

Habakkuk disagreed with God
God loved Habakuk

You are allowed
Doesn't make the person who disagreed right

Love triumphs over ignorance

a reply to: Raggedyman

Abraham also disagreed with God and got him to change his mind and save Lot and his family from Sodom.

“If you love Me, keep My commandments.

He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.”

He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father’s who sent Me.

a reply to: Stormdancer777

Those who keep his commandments do not sin because love fulfils the law. If Christians claim to sin every day, does that mean they don't love Jesus? Or does it mean they love the wrong Jesus?

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
“If you love Me, keep My commandments.

He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.”

He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father’s who sent Me.

You forgot the juicy part:

John 14:15-17“If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.

And Matthew 5:18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

Jesus was the Torah, the Law, the Word of God. Is it all accomplished in the moment of crucifixion and the miracle of Pentecost? That there is some story running between lines and jumping from book to book, that Jesus was handed over to be sacrificed by the Romans and split the responsibility between them? If Jesus would die as an act of religious sacrifice, he would be an unclean sacrifice according to the torah law (he's got toes and doesn't eat his vomit), and all daily sacrifice would have to cease, as spoken by Daniel the prophet and Jesus himself.

John 19:28 After this, Jesus, knowing that all was now finished, said (to fulfill the Scripture), “I thirst.” A jar full of sour wine stood there, so they put a sponge full of the sour wine on a hyssop branch and held it to his mouth. When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, “It is finished,” and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

If there was a prophet in Nineveh who would change the plan of God, there certainly were plenty of these men and women by the cross that night. Jesus didn't die, he went unconscious for a while and needed emergency surgery and a handful lifesavers, which he received, rest is sort of blurred until he is seen, still pretty shaky, by his love Mary three days later. Heaven and Earth didn't quite pass away, did they?

It is this the Christians fear when they claim Jesus died and abolished «the first covenant» and replaced it with a supposed other one involving the use of patsies and human sacrifice (the pogroms against the Christians were incredibly bloody). I can't understand why the Saulians can't see and understand this. That God did change his mind as for Jesus and the whole sacrifice thing, God DID change the destiny of Jesus, he was a living proof of that himself, showing up here and there for quite a few times after that crucial afternoon before Passover nearly two millennia ago. The old bleeder is prolly still showing off his scars to the single ladies. If it was dead Jesus were on Calvary, he certainly survived it. And no records of any sacrifices ending in the Temple ending until 70 AD when the Temple was sacked and the Diaspora started.

a reply to: 2012newstart

You wrote: QUOTE "Jesus might have been married though. 40 gospels that surface from everywhere say so..." UNQUOTE

I know the Gospel of Phillip says " and Miryam was (the name of) his sister and of his mother and of his Consort...and the Lord loved her more than all the disciples and used to kiss her often on the m[outh].'

but do let me know what exactly are these '40 Gospels' which show a 'married Jesus' ? I know of none that specify this except the Gospel of Phillip.

a reply to: Sigismundus

Agreed. But there is ONE MORE, a recent discovery:
Thread ==> www.abovetopsecret.com...
Article ==> www.smithsonianmag.com...

a reply to: Sigismundus

There are books. Not only the Gnostic gospels, such as the apocrypha of John. But also newly discovered ancient books, such as the Gospel of Mary
en.wikipedia.org...
And the most recently discovered very well preserved Gospel of Barnabas en.wikipedia.org...

Obviously, I will not even try to quote for you 40 or more texts. I don't have that time, I am not paid here. I read it somewhere in article, forgot how long. The books are MANY, indeed MANY, who disagree with the 3 synoptic canonical books (as if written by one man), and the gospel of John, on the question did Mary Magdalene was just a spiritual friend of Jesus or something more. In fact you can derive that conclusions even only reading the canonical books. No one else dared to touch Jesus after the resurrection (not even the beloved disciple) except after His explicitly order to touch Him. Incuding Thomas. Mary Magdalene hugged His feet without asking for any permission. It is clear the relation between Jesus and Magdalene goes far beyond his relations with the other women or his 12 male disciples.

Another example: Gospel of Thomas Saying 114 "Simon Peter said to them: Let Mariham go out from among us, for women are not worthy of the life. Jesus said: Look, I will lead her that I may make her male, in order that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who makes herself male will enter into the kingdom of heaven."

(I guess there are other quotes that will be accepted better by the female readers that accent on the female important role, and no tonly on the male role - as the times were such viewed by many )

Much could be said about the gospels that were not lucky enough to be included at the time of ancient councils. New councils could include all of them, and even newer ones.

Imagine the angels filmed the entire life of Jesus 33 years long movie.


----------------------------------------------------------
I would answer another poster, that the 2 witnesses are persons not coming from earth but returning from...above. Enoch, Elijah, and recently Dead Scroll text speaks of Melchizedek coming back. We may not be talking of literal 3.5 years but of longer or shorter times, may be longer. 144,000 are mentioned in 2 chapters, but it is not mandatory they to be limited to 3.5 y or 7 y. The understanding of the timing is insufficient. You have 69-70 week of Daniel that was delayed for 1980 years and counting. As I said before, new extension is possible after the rapture of the manchild until the war in space ends, and satan is thrown to earth. That will take time! Star Wars-episode 265.


The Churches must address those issues and not to behave as if they are 10th century scholars who are satisfied with the understanding of 10th century (or earlier) when the earth was made flat for convenience to avoid discussion of other worlds seen with naked eye in a clear night. How easy! Pope and Patriarch of Russia are going to meet after 10 days in CUBA for a first time in history. That might be the last chance to peacefully settle world global questions, and especially the religious intake on them. I mean something more than the ongoing crises here and there. Let say the arrival of angelic hosts. You know, after their arrival, the churches who did not refix themselves after centuries of trespasses will find it very difficult to do so. Or will have to make sharp turns and lose millions. Why not simply say the crowds, Galileo was right, Bruno was right, and "we know from time immemorial of other worlds inhabited by angels, and still others inhabited but what we would call demons, and still others inhabited by what we call - similar to ourselves in terms of errors and shortcomings". Why don't they tell us that is already told by skillful researchers on MSM like Dr Michael Salla and the moon astronaut Dr Edgar Mitchel? (he just passed away, may he rest in peace).