Mary is the most important figure in Christianity

[outhouse]

It was just a hypothesis.

It is baseless.

Unsubstantiated.

Mary would have been a very poor illiterate Jewish village mother of many.


We have no clue what her life was like other then typical oppressed poverty stricken Galilean village peasants life.


Nazareth was a hovel, who more or less served in my opinon, as a work camp and agrarian needs for Sepphoris.

 

[Estro Felino]

It is baseless.

Unsubstantiated.
Mary would have been a very poor illiterate Jewish village mother of many.
We have no clue what her life was like other then typical oppressed poverty stricken Galilean village peasants life.
Nazareth was a hovel, who more or less served in my opinon, as a work camp and agrarian needs for Sepphoris.

Actually poverty doesn't imply ignorance. In fact I believe she was one of most intelligent women ever.
Secondly, do you agree on what I said? That is, that the Greeks deserved freedom and were a refined, spiritual people....whereas the Romans were a bunch of greedy, money-hungry, tawdry boors?

 

[outhouse]

Actually poverty doesn't imply ignorance. In fact I believe she was one of most intelligent women ever.

But you dont have a clue. You keep making unsubstantied comments.

What do you actually know about this Galilean women? what is your source?

Secondly, do you agree on what I said?

No. You have little to no knowledge of cultural anthropology.

 

[Estro Felino]

But you dont have a clue. You keep making unsubstantied comments.
What do you actually know about this Galilean women? what is your source?

well...a seer, an Italian woman saw Mary when she was ten. She is the lady you see in the video I posted at the beginning of the thread.
This seer understood who Mary was. She was incredibly intelligence and wise.

 

[Windwalker]

The purpose of Jesus' coming was not just to teach the path of love, but to be the path of love; that is, since Jesus is God Incarnate, the path of love -- or full reconciliation -- is opened for us (we don't open it ourselves; our "work" is response -- not initiation; God loves first) and we now have a new reality to live into; a reality in which humankind is reconciled to God.

I will agree with this. But to be love, is to teach love by our being. Our work is a response, yes. But it is also an act of our will in that response. There is no compulsion to respond. What we initiate is our own self-discipline on our path in response to love. One thing to add though, it is a path towards a life fully responsive and flowing from and toward that Love. That is where discipline and intention come in. We can at any point chose to shut ourselves off and down again, though once the eyes of been opened, how dark would that be?

 

[Windwalker]

I believe Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law. Love is only one aspect of God; there is jsutice and mercy and goodness to mention a few others.

God is Love. God is Light. God is Spirit. Love is the fulfillment of the law.

"if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF." Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." ~ Romans 13:9,10​

How did Jesus, or does anyone, fulfill God's law, if not through Love? Simply obeying, in the sense of compliance with, is NOT fulfilling the law. One must make clean the inside of the cup first. Without which we are whitewashed tombs full of dead men's bones, clean on the outside and full of hypocrisy on the inside.

 

[outhouse]

well...a seer, an Italian woman saw Mary when she was ten. She is the lady you see in the video I posted at the beginning of the thread.
This seer understood who Mary was. She was incredibly intelligence and wise.

Not credible. There is no such thing that is credible.

That is not a valid historical source.

 

[Estro Felino]

Not credible. There is no such thing that is credible.

That is not a valid historical source.

precisely. It's not a historical source, but I believe her and that enables me to understand lots of things

 

[outhouse]

precisely. It's not a historical source, but I believe her and that enables me to understand lots of things

Your belief matters nothing, in a debate.

You cannot use her as a credible source for anything other then unsubstantited faith.

 

[sojourner]

I will agree with this. But to be love, is to teach love by our being. Our work is a response, yes. But it is also an act of our will in that response. There is no compulsion to respond. What we initiate is our own self-discipline on our path in response to love. One thing to add though, it is a path towards a life fully responsive and flowing from and toward that Love. That is where discipline and intention come in. We can at any point chose to shut ourselves off and down again, though once the eyes of been opened, how dark would that be?

Once you've been enlightened, it would take something near catastrophic to shut you down again, I should think.

 

[Windwalker]

Once you've been enlightened, it would take something near catastrophic to shut you down again, I should think.

Yes, if you consider enlightenment as I do, to not just be an awakening experience, but a permanent condition of lived being. To go back from an awakening moment, to see God, does radically change someone's entire perspective. But it fades as we fall back into the habits of our lives that have yet to grow into that. Growth into that Christ Consciousness, takes time and commitment. As the saying goes, "States are free. Stages are earned". That earning is going though the stages of growth learning how to integrate that awaken mind, to be the permanent stage one is at. Although, honestly, there is no end to enlightenment. There is no end goal. Is there an end to God? So as, to go backward in growth to an earlier stage, would indeed take something rather severe to regress that way. But people can regress at any stage, like someone reverting to being a 13 year old for the rest of their life.