Truth in the Word

2006-01-17 [Priest Kel]: It's not an unfair statement, it's the truth. Unless God commanded the holiday, then there is really no point in celebrating it. He did however say "Do this in rememberance of Me," at the Passover feast to His disciples, and yet most Christians don't. You all seem to be clinging to your traditions. I guess you all also think that the Sabbath is Sunday. Plus, just because someone was taught something all their lives doesn't mean that it is true. Santa Claus doesn't exist and neither does the Easter Bunny.

2006-01-17 [Priest Kel]: And no, I don't celebrate Christmas or Halloween or Easter or St. Valentine's Day (Catholic Holiday) or St. Patrick's Day (Catholic Holiday) or the fourth of July (American Holiday and I am not American for my loyalties lie with the Kingdom of God and that is my country). Is there any particular holidays that I left out?

2006-01-18 [Child of God]: I'm not saying if your view is right or wrong, but it is unfair in your statement. True, Jesus does not command this of us, but at the same time he does not directly refute it either (from what I know, perhaps I am wrong and He does directly refute it. If so, I apologize and ask for the reference). True we are not to be transformed by the world, but we are called to engage WITH the world. God intented for society to develope (granted the origional purpose may not be as society is now), but He none the less intended for it. Even if society is corrupt, we can participate in the world without being of the world. So yes, the world and society practises these holidays with pagan intentions, but

2006-01-18 [Child of God]: that isn't to say that as Christians we can't practise the holiday with Christian intentions, if we can find foundation for the celebration. Personally, I celebrate the birth, life and death of our saviour everyday. I rejoice however, in the opportunity to share this at Christmas when the Spirit moves in the world to make the world more receptive to the Message. Do I give and recieve gifts at Christmas? Yes, most of us do. But I give gifts for the joy of giving to others, and I recieve gifts in the mentality that people enjoy giving them as well. I will not argue that Christmas is not commercialized these days, as the amount of commercialization sickens me personally. But at the same time,

2006-01-18 [Child of God]: I'm not going to withdraw from a situation in which the Spirit is working. Which are we called to do? Remove ourselves from the world, or work within the world by Spirit?Actions speak louder than words. We already know that the "Fire and Brimestone" approach is largely ineffective to the majority of the population, but isn't that what is occuring by withdrawing and condeming the practise when done from a sincere foundation? Again, I do not target directly and say if it is right or wrong definently, I'm saying that isn't it unfair to condem something as wrong if the Spirit is working in and using it? This is going beyound the politics of it, down to the core foundations upon which the heart

2006-01-18 [Child of God]: is operating in this instance. Does the origional intention matter so much if the Spirit is using it to work in God's glory? Is it the origion or the purpose that is important, strickly speaking from a Christian perspective?

2006-01-19 [Simply Real]: I do not doubt at all that if you were honestly a spirit led christian and totally submited to God, kel, he would lead you out to evengelise in the spirit and celebration of Christmas, further more as he may not of originally comanded it in his word, I bet should you ask him he would have asked you to celebrate it. Remember the catholics may have thought one thing or had a certain idea to just boost their chruch.. but god uses all things together for good. All things... especially Christmas where the meaning can be applied to Christ, his son, the salvation we receive, the ONLY way into heaven. Christmas morning, first thing I think of, like anyother day, is Jesus. I know the sabbath isnt 

2006-01-19 [Simply Real]: truly sunday but yet agian the world would not know than and thusly sunday has become the symbolic day that we associate with curch and God, just as Christmas to Christ. Not santa clause or for that matter, sunday the day being the day that people recover from hangovers. Dont get caught up in the technicallities of it all, for when the time comes your focus may have been wrong and you may be one of the people God turns to and says "depart from me for I know you not"

2006-01-19 [dragonflye]: Actually, in the 15 hundreds, if you'll do your research, the Catholic church changed the Sabbath day to Sunday. And if you feel that the only day you should give and/or recieve presents on Christmas then you yourself are commercializing the holiday in your own actions. You should want to give and recieve gifts everyday of the year, not just one.

2006-01-19 [Priest Kel]: Here is where I refer you both to The Christmas Holiday

2006-01-19 [Priest Kel]: And to you [Simply Real] I ask on what scripture you judge me as not being a Spirit led Follower of Christ? Since only God Himself can judge others, and His Word is the only thing He uses that we can measure other's behavior on, than what scripture do you use to judge me? I could explain a few more things about why I do not celebrate Christmas, but it is not time yet and I do not feel led to reveal said information at this current point in time. And actually, what day the Sabbath is on is not just a technicality since it is the first Commandment created (read Genesis) and is very important since one of the main charges against Israel is the fact that they do not honor His Sabbaths..

2006-01-19 [Priest Kel]: and if those who truly loved Him and cared for following His Word and Truths would research what they are being taught instead of just believing the traditions that are being fed to them then they would find that Sunday is what the Catholic church felt they had the power to change the Sabbath to, as [dragonflye] kindly pointed out. The pope felt he had such power to alter God's Commandments, and attempted to do such. Celebrating the Sabbath on Sunday is like following one of the pope's orders. Again, more will be given about this specific arguement at a later date.

2006-01-19 [Child of God]: Are these not just technicalities though? I mean, I'm the first to admit that I don't keep the Sabbath. I CAN'T, since it is one of the few days I am able to work, which I must do to pay tuition, rent, bills, etc. That's not to say that I don't set time apart from God because I do. Again, I personally point back to what is in your heart when you are engaging in the activity. Is that not what God will judge us on? What was in our hearts when we did something?

2006-01-19 [Priest Kel]: Does not God say that we have but one judge and the Word is that judge? Christ spoke of the only laws that must be observed being the Commandments themselves. The others were merely meant to guide our moral behavior to reflect His own morality and honor. True, He does test the hearts but does Christ Himself not say that if we love Him then we will keep His Commandments? And I refer to my essay on the Fourth Commandment-The Sabbath

2006-01-19 [Priest Kel]: And just to be 100% clear, commandments are not technicalities, they are commands handed down by God to Moses written and carved with His own hands. I myself do not keep the Sabbath as I should, but I make sacrifices on that day that I pray that my Lord will accept as substitution until such time that I can keep the Sabbath as I should.

2006-01-21 [Priest Kel]: It seems that I have scared everyone off

2006-01-22 [dragonflye]: And just to clarify what he's saying about 'sacrifices', it's not like virgin or animal sacrifices. He sacrifices food on the Sabbath. He fasts for a day. I figured I might make that clear for you andrew. Don't want them thinking you're some crazy pagan or something.

2006-01-22 [Child of God]: I thought it was God who judges us when we die. That's what I'm refering to, when we will all be judged for what we have done. And won't He judge us based on what was in our hearts when we participated/did some of these things (that's to say, such things as participating in Christmas for example, not something extreme like killing someone). Personally, I am aware that commandments are not technicalities, but as much as law for us, but I'm refering to other aspects which have arisen which are not commandments. Such as the day of the Sabbath. True, the pope changed the exact day, but will God hold that against us when we die if we observe the Sunday as the Sabbath rather than the Saturday?

2006-01-22 [Child of God]: Those are such things I am refering to as technicalities; not the command itself (since that is indisputable), but such things which for many people they are unable to control (for example, most people don't know that Saturday was at one time the true Sabbath. With all that I know of God and Jesus, I can not see them holding that against someone when they die. Perhaps I am wrong, but that is my personal belief about God). Now in saying that, I also realize that the more we know, the more responsiblity we have and the more accountable we will be, but for the sake of this conversation, I am refering to those who do not know. Will God not judge us, individually when we die, with what was in our

2006-01-22 [Child of God]: hearts when we did the action, rather than the action itself? When we sin against God, our hearts are (usually) in greed and rebellion. But if in your heart you are truly trying (my English prof is cringing with that statement) to glorify God, and do what is right to Him and love Him, then can you truly say that you are sinning? How can an action be a sin if it is in a heart of pure love towards God? True God uses and is within all of us, but does not Him specifically work through and with the heart of people? Is it not what is in the heart which matters at the end of the day, and by which we will be judged when we face Him at the seat of Judgment?

2006-01-22 [Simply Real]: Im not on enough to reply speedily...i only catch gimpsesof the convo and only get a taste of where its going... hmm... anyway im done with this...

2006-01-24 [Child of God]: Oh, and [Priest Kel] thanks so much for your involvment in the other wiki. Most of us on that wiki don't have enough background to give good, solid refutes so thank you so much (I converse regularly with other people on that wiki on how to respond to that person on other topics inwhich they would be unable to refute with word-games, so once again thank you for your great refute.)

2006-01-25 [Priest Kel]: Following a man's command instead of God's direct command is placing a man in higher regard than God. God said to work six days, as He did, and rest the seventh, as He did. Well, He worked the first six days of the week (Sunday through Friday) and rested the last day of the week (Saturday). And I did not judge, I only repeat the message that the Lord commanded. If one truly wished to follow God then they would wish to make 100% sure that they are following Him properly, which involves research, study, and prayer. Not just listening to what some man screaming in a pulpit says. True, we are to follow as sheep, but we are to follow God, not mere men. Which is a big reason..

2006-01-25 [Priest Kel]: as to why I disagree with celebrating most things originated from the Catholic church. The pope is a mere man and made up all these 'God-ordained' holidays for us to follow.

2006-01-25 [Child of God]: I do agree to that, however like I said, I is very difficult to do that fully especially when we are at a younger age than other. The best some can do is make the most of what we can and again, I do not believe that God will hold that against us when we die. I'm non-denominational because I don't agree with how and why the church was split into the different denominations and I agree with with the faults of the Catholic church. But in saying that, I don't think God is going to punish Catholic followers who in their hearts truly do love God and Jesus, and were just unfortunate to be born into that atmosphere. I think it goes back again to what is in your heart when you do/think/believe

2006-01-25 [Child of God]: something. But those of us who do know the difference, we have more responsibility and are held more accountable when we die. Which is to bring up another point of dicussion if people don't mind, and one which I questioned my theology prof. about and was unable to answer me in any sufficient way; what happened/happens to people who are in pagan cultures, who never heard/hear the message of Christ? What of those, such as the Greeks, the Aztec, early Chinese, etc, all those who did not know of Jesus and/or have never heard of the Hebrews. Some did, but many did not so what happened to them when they died? Did God punish them because they were not part of the 'Chosen'? Are they sent to Hell

2006-01-25 [Child of God]: just because they were never given the opportunity to repent and/or hear about God?

2006-01-29 [Priest Kel]: No, then they are judged purely upon their heart and their conscience, but this helps to answer your comment above. When someone is born into that atmosphere, but someone shows them that they are wrong by what the Bible says and they ignore it, then they shall be held accountable. If I tell a Catholic, that by following the pope as if he were God Himself they violate the First Commandment and they continue to follow the pope then they shall be at fault for that. I ask that before you make your next post that you read Ezekiel 3:17-21

2006-01-31 [Roccoriel]: I don't think there's any merit to the idea that people in pagan cultures or otherwise non-christian, non-protestant affiliation go to hell. Christianity is new in the grand scheme of things and for that reason alone proves itself to be nothing more than a creation of man.

2006-01-31 [Priest Kel]: Considering that Christianity is nothing more than the fulfillment of the Old Testament written by His chosen Hebrews (and by His chosen I mean those that He knew wouldn't change what He said) then Christianity is technically just as old as those pagan cultures. Christ was there in the Old Testament, He just wasn't mentioned to the fullest extent. Although, if you want more proof of Him being there in the Old Testament, read John 1 and the Book of Daniel. In John it states that Christ is The Word and there is nothing that exists that He did not create and in Daniel when the Hebrew children are thrown into the fiery furnace, there is one person in the furnace with them that was not...

2006-01-31 [Priest Kel]: thrown inside with them and He had the countenance of the Son of God.

2006-02-02 [Roccoriel]: The Jews don't think so and they have the original version; which is called the Torah. "old testement" implies that there is a new one...the "new one" is the bible. Furthermore there is no evidence to suggest that Christianity is as old or older than the pagan religions. In fact, archealogical evidence and anthropology studies prove quite the opposite. Polytheism is older, more long lasting and more natural to humans than is monotheism.

2006-02-02 [Child of God]: Have you ever compared the Torah and the Old Testement? Except for the names of the books, and the combination of smaller books into larger books they are the same. If you like, The Case for Faith address most of your arguments through archealogical and historical evidence. Evidence Tha Demands a Verdict is another good one.

2006-02-03 [Priest Kel]: Actually, the Old Testament is the Jews Torah and the New Testament is that which was written by the different Followers of Christ that came after Jesus' death. And since Judaism (which is basically Christianity, nothing really changed except that The Sacrifice was made) traces it's roots back to the beginning of the world, as do most older faiths. So how is it not as old as paganism?

2006-02-03 [Delladreing]: If I wasn't in school and haveing to log out every few minutes I'd form an answer to that :p

2006-02-05 [Priest Kel]: ^_^ Well, certain people decide that when they can't answer to it that they just ignore it and pretend it wasn't said.

2006-02-05 [Delladreing]: Oh yea tell me about that. And my only response I can think of juyst now is pagan refers to someone outwith what is now mainstream religion, like Christianity, and pagans were refered to in the Jewish texts asweel ergo they've been either about as long or time, I don't know I can't form coherant responses right now, I'm actually in no fiot state to be online o.<

2006-03-05 [Priest Kel]: Agreed Fiona, although with the Hebrews it was in their opinion them (who were above all other people) and the Gentiles (who were sub-human), which is nothing but arrogance and completely untrue.

2006-03-05 [Delladreing]: Yep, heh its only now that I'm reading that with the number of typos and gramaitcal errors its like "dude, wtf why was i online when I was that tired" o.O

2006-03-05 [Priest Kel]: Yeah, I was wondering the same thing a few minutes ago.

2006-03-05 [Delladreing]: Heh 3 days of sleep deprivation was my excuse.

2006-03-09 [Priest Kel]: Lol I guess that could be considered a worthy excuse

2006-03-09 [Delladreing]: I should hope so :P

2006-03-12 [Priest Kel]: It seems that you are the only one here any longer Fiona that wishes to communicate

2006-03-12 [Delladreing]: Maybe I scared them >.>

2006-03-12 [Glitter~Rain]: Can i become a member guys???

2006-03-12 [Priest Kel]: Certainly

2006-03-19 [w00kie:)]: Hello there! Just read through the past 12 pages and thought to drop a remaining question of mine (which I hope will find an answer ^^). I am kind of wondering... Why is it that He wants us to believe in Him? I mean, He loves us as we are His children, but what if you're being raised in an environment of deception and therefor simply cannot be a faithful believer unless one experiences a revelation by heart! (And in that matter, would He hold it against us if we never came to do so?) I don't know if you know what I mean, but I'd still be interested in your response(s)...

2006-03-19 [Priest Kel]: He wants us to believe in Him in the same way that a father wishes for the child to trust in him. We can see our physical fathers but not our Heavenly Father and so we must have faith that He is there watching, guiding, and protecting us. And as to your revelation by heart question, His children will receive such a revelation because you are just that: His child. Regardless of what the Sons of Satan attempt to do the Sons of Yahweh will prevail.

2006-04-29 [Ladyeternalflame]: I have some deep questions about my faith that are hard to answer. Why did God create Lucifer, if God is omniscient and knows the future, he would know that Lucifer would rebel against him and become and enemy, and cuase so much trouble, heart ache and lost souls for humanity. Did God know that Lucifer would trick Adam and Eve into sinning and trick the human race into wrong beliefs, why did gOd create this angel who would bring the downfall of humanity? Did God not know what Lucifer would do when he created heaven and the angels? Or is it because of free will that any angel can rebel, become evil and lead a rebelion against God? If Lucifer had not rebeled, another angel could have doen so.

2006-04-30 [Child of God]: I think we all have questions like that right? I'm struggling right now awfully in my faith, and if I wasn't attending a Christian University I know I would have lost it by now. I personally have lost alot of faith in the Bible from what I have found out about it. Specifically the New Testement. The Old Testement I believe wholly, and I believe the apostles and Revelation but the rest of the N.T. doesn't hold up for me anymore. I know so many people that say you have to believe in either all of it or none of it, and I used to be one of those people until I found out about the Biblical cannon and how it was decided that books should be left out. To me, that looses huges amounts of credibility

2006-05-01 [Ladyeternalflame]: The books that were left out, the apocrypha, had little credibility. They were like a collection of fables and legends, they did not have the reputation of being truthful and accurate as the books in the New Testament were. Do you believe in the gospels and the letters of Paul? What parts of the Bible do you have a problem with? I have a problem with the parts that are sexist and the violent slaughters in the OT.

2006-05-01 [Ladyeternalflame]: I would like to go to a Christian University. I want to study the Bible. I believe in the Bible but I have a problem with the verses that say women should cover their heads when they pray and should not speak in church, that women cannot have authority over men or teach men. I do not really have aproblem with women submitting to their husbands, as logn as no abuse is going on. I think women should be able to be ministers.

2006-05-02 [Child of God]: There are more books than just what is in the apocrypha but they were destroyed by the Medieval Church. I don't know too much about those early books, just that they exist. Unfortunently, I can't take the history class dealing with them until my fourth year, so I'll have to wait till then to have my questions answered. My problem comes with the letters. I believe in the gospels and their account of Jesus' life, but what the other books say I just can't take as credible, since they are early followers speaking to early followers. I agree that the verses about women I have a problem with. Does Jesus Himself ever say that, or do the disciples? Personally, I believe that if Jesus didn't say/

2006-05-02 [Child of God]: command it, that it doesn't hold credability and is just a result of the culture of the time.

2006-05-02 [Priest Kel]: I do know that the verse referring to women being silent in church had to do with a problem with the Corinthian church at the time. The women would constantly distract their husbands by asking for explanations in the middle of the teachings at the gatherings. This caused the men to not be able to pay attention and guide their houses later on. Also, the only reason that any of those verses come about is due to the simple fact that Adam came from God whereas Eve came from Adam. That made Eve a step removed from God. That doesn't mean that the Holy Spirit hasn't changed things around. Please, don't misunderstand and think that I'm sexist, because I'm not. I'm just explaining why those...

2006-05-02 [Priest Kel]: verses say that which they do.

2006-05-05 [~Ithika~]: i dont think women should be able to be ministers, though i guess it depends on your definition of a minister compared to mine.

2006-05-06 [Priest Kel]: Truth is truth regardless of who speaks it. When the Holy Spirit speaks through someone, whether they be white, black, male, female, gay or straight we should all turn our ears to listen. The Truth should be looked for at all times.

2006-05-06 [~Ithika~]: so in your opinion a minister is one who teaches others?

2006-05-06 [Priest Kel]: That is not what I said. I spoke my opinion about those who speak the Truth, anyone can speak the Truth if they can recognize it but not all who recognize the Truth for what it is have the gift to teach others.

2006-05-06 [~Ithika~]: can you please tell me what your definition of a minister is? and i will clarify my reason for being against women ministers.

2006-05-06 [Priest Kel]: Well, considering that Aaron and his sons ministered to the Lord in the first tabernacle and that angels are God's ministers then I believe, until I find other proof, that ministers are those who speak with and do the will of God.

2006-05-08 [~Ithika~]: ok then i have nothing against women ministers then.

2006-05-08 [Child of God]: But does Jesus say directly that women shouldn't be ministers? I personally only take when Jesus says, not His disciples in their letters but that is their interpretation of what they were taught combined with their culture and not Jesus' directed words.

2006-05-08 [~Ithika~]: But isn't everything that is said or taught an interpretation of what is in the bible. There are somethings that Christ has said that cannot be taken literally and so if it is to be followed it must be interpreted. Such as the parables, they are interpreted by us, or by anyone who reads them to find a meaning.

2006-05-12 [Priest Kel]: I must address this issue on what Jesus said in the idea of women authority figures to [Child of God], did Christ choose any female disciples? If not, then it is taught by His actions, not His words, that females are not to be in authority over men or to teach them.

2006-05-12 [w00kie:)]: But he didn't explicitly say so, now did he? So whatever you're interpreting in his deeds are exactly that - your interpretations. Nothing more, so don't lay something into Jesus mouth what might have had many other reasons at that time!

2006-05-16 [Child of God]: But due to the time period, women wouldn't have been listened to anyway right? Jesus knew the crowd, the people he were dealing with. He knew the attitudes toward women in that day, especially in the Roman Empire. So isn't it concievable that He he also did what he knew what would impact his culture the most? Jesus never actually says about abolishing slavery either, yet the Roman Empire was built and ran on slave labour. If we go by Jesus' example for that, then we should still keep slaves but just treat them fairly. Personally, it doesn't matter to me on the whole women in ministry issue, but I question it because of it's lack of clarity in the Bible. If Jesus doesn't say it, are we 

2006-05-16 [Child of God]: supposed to give it as much weight as what He does say? Are the disciple's words to be taken as 'Holy' or 'Divine' as Jesus'? That is where I have the issues, when the words of mere men are given the same weight as God's. It's like the Mother Marry in the Roman Catholic Church. Jesus rebukes a women for crying out praise to His mother, but she is now prayed to. To me, that is going directly against what Jesus says. (Sorry if I offended anyone who is Catholic but it's true)

2006-05-17 [Priest Kel]: Well, Christ didn't explicitly say celebrate His resurrection every year or His birth every year did He? And yet you still do. I had said that He did not choose a female head for the church and that goes along with what Paul said that a woman should not be in authority over a man. Also, Paul writes that He is to be our example and therefore we must learn by His actions as well as His words.

2006-05-17 [Priest Kel]: I agree with you whole-heartedly on the Mary issue, because it is blasphemy to pray to a mere woman, blessed or otherwise, and put her in the place of God. Also, Jesus did not have slaves, so going by His example we shouldn't have them either. Also, there is a point in either First or Second Timothy that says that all scripture was written by men through the Holy Spirit and therefore good for teaching as if God spoke them. I myself have written many things about certain traditions that men and women follow that the Bible either clearly denounces or does not specifically command to celebrate, but I also write things due to inspiration granted by God to write for Him. Does that mean that..

2006-05-17 [Priest Kel]: what I or anyone else has written for His cause is obsolete and no one should listen to when it is still the Truth? And no, I'm not giving myself credit as a prophet, but pointing out the fact that God commanded us to test all things keep that which is pure and good. Not keep what we want because it doesn't match up to what we like, but keep that which is pure. Sometimes it is not what is written that is the problem with what people believe, but what they wish to believe clouding their mind.

2006-05-18 [w00kie:)]: "Christ didn't explicitly say celebrate His resurrection every year or His birth every year did He? And yet you still do." -> What I do or don't do is my business and not part of any global religious belief. I wouldn't be less of a Christian if I cherrished Christ during Easter/Christmas just about as much as the rest of the year, now would I? "He did not choose a female head for the church" -> _HE_ didn't choose anything as "head" for something! There wasn't even such a thing as the church during his time. Only people who shared the same belief and the love in God. Hence it's completely irrelevant who was being chosen as head of something after his time (by humans who err I might add).

2006-05-18 [w00kie:)]: "Paul writes that He is to be our example and therefore we must learn by His actions as well as His words." -> I agree on this one with you. However, it's a huge difference whether we lift after his ideal or after something _we_ think he would have done... and then try to enforce our (possibly) inferior and subjective interpretations over others! That's an ignorant and foolish thing to do. We are supposed to listen to each other and learn from other people's opinions (in order to use our God-given intellect to build up an own _justified_ opinion).

2006-05-18 [w00kie:)]: "God commanded us to test all things keep that which is pure and good." -> Ehm. Excuse me? I really think you actually do see a prophet every time you look into the mirror. Who are you to define what's pure and good?! Jesus didn't _ever_ say something about women not being equal followers of the belief. Unless you prove me wrong, I'll take THAT as my role model! "Sometimes it is not what is written that is the problem with what people believe, but what they wish to believe clouding their mind." -> No offense, but right back at ya!

2006-05-20 [Priest Kel]: Actually, He did choose the apostles and they are the twelve foundations for New Jerusalem spoken of in Revelation. Since the twelve tribes are the gates and the twelve apostles the foundation then I believe that He did choose them to lead those who would come after Him in His ways. And actually, there was such a thing as the church in that time. In case you have never read the Bible, it is spoken of in many verses that the church is not a specific organization but the people themselves that believe in Him (Acts 20:28 & Galatians 1:13). And I might add that the Twelve were chosen by Him and His Father. And there is a huge difference between living after His ideal and actually living...

2006-05-20 [Priest Kel]: as He would. And I do not define that which is pure and good, God does and He tells us that which is pure and good through His word. That is a basic Christian theological teaching. And of course He never said anything about women not being equal followers in the belief, I never said they weren't, just that the Bible says that women should not be held in authority over men and the fact that He did not choose a female among the Twelve is proof in His actions of this belief. Plus, I was not directing the final quote you used towards you, only that it is something that has lead to corruption. My example for that would be the Catholic church. I, personally, only wish to believe that my...

2006-05-20 [Priest Kel]: Lord and Master is pure, holy, and far beyond our comprehension. But, in order to match my wishes for the Master's holiness with what He speaks of in the Bible then I must change what I believe to match it. Once again, I do not claim to be a prophet nor do I claim to be better than anyone else. All I claim is that I wish to serve my Master as best as humanly possible. Also, I wish to maintain the fact that there is no need to become angry with anything that is said for we are here to discuss and learn, not to be angry and insult each other.

2006-06-15 [Dark Side of the Moon]: Let’s look at it this way also: one of God’s many Hebrew names, El Shaddai, is “many breasted one”. This suggests that God is female as well as male. Thus, when Adam was created, he was created male and female. Bear in mind that the English language can use “he” or “him” in a generic sense to denote both males and females. Now, apply this to Christians. There are male Christians and female Christians. Paul says in the book of Galatians, ch. 3 vs. 27 – 28 “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (NIV)

2006-06-15 [Dark Side of the Moon]: As to the command to the Corinthians concerning letting their women speak in church, you must consider the spiritual state that Paul found the Corinthians to be in: a state of spiritual decay, yet still babes in the knowledge of Christ when they should have been farther advanced in His truth, that there were divisions in this particular congregation, sexual immorality, etc. etc. Paul commanded that women should not speak in the church, but he commanded it only to this particular group, not to the entire body of Christ as a whole.

2006-06-15 [Dark Side of the Moon]: I think that the reason behind this is that women, being what they are (I’m female, so I know) are likely, as emotional beings, to stir and divide and bring confusion. This command was given to the church at Corinth because of the behaviour of the women of that church. It also says in I Corinthians ch. 11 that women are to be submissive to men and that the man is the head of the woman and the woman is to keep her head covered. But, in vs. 16 Paul says “But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.” (NIV)

2006-06-15 [Dark Side of the Moon]: Paul would certainly contradict himself if he at one time said that women should be in authority nor preach and turn around and say that there is “neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ.” One must read the entire letter and understand the conditions to which Paul is speaking regarding his command. To say that women can have no authority where it comes to speaking or preaching is errant; otherwise, the spiritual gifts given by God would be given to men only: prophesying, the word of knowledge, the word of wisdom are all the speaking gifts of God and are given by the Holy Spirit as He wills along with the other spiritual gifts of God.

2006-06-15 [Dark Side of the Moon]: I have heard women operating in all of these speaking gifts and men have gleaned much from them. If women should not be in authority, then why was Deborah allowed to be a judge, A LEADER, in ancient Israel? Would that not have conflicted with whatever “rule” it is that says that women shouldn’t speak or be given authority? I did not write this to be argumentative. I wrote this so that there would hopefully be a little clarification on the subject and wrote with all due respect.

2006-06-15 [Priest Kel]: I certainly appreciate your commentation and respect that others sometimes forget. For that I am exceptionally grateful. And I would have to say that I agree with your argument and I apologize for any mistakes that I have made in the past, but as I said before Truth is Truth regardless of who speaks it and the way I see it there truly are no leaders perse, but only elders who are more knowledgeable and wiser. The only true leader of the church is Christ, and no one has authority over me except Him. This is what I have always believed and I guess I was a little blinded by what I have been told by one or two other collegues of mine. I shall have to present your arguement to these that...

2006-06-15 [Priest Kel]: have spoken this to me and see what they say.

2006-06-17 [Priest Kel]: Actually, after thinking it over for awhile I must say that though your arguement is compelling indeed, I still must disagree in the form of authority. Women may achieve those spiritual gifts that you described, but then again, Paul does write for the older women to teach the younger and the older men to teach the younger therefore Paul does suggest a separate but equal charge of the church. Much in the same way as the Father to the Son, they are separate in that the Father rules over the Son but still equal in that they have the same knowledge and power as do men and women. Men and women are equal in that they both are able to attain the spiritual gifts granted by the Lord yet they are..

2006-06-17 [Priest Kel]: separate in that the male is to be head of the household and the women are not to have authority over them. This is also due to Eve's original sin. Eve's curse was that she was to desire her husbands position as head of the household yet would never attain it. This curse was spread through all women as was the curse of pain during childbirth. This is why many women can not accept what the Bible says in regards to women being submissive to their husbands or to not have authority over men. Regardless, this does not give men the right to abuse said authority over women, and doing so is a grave injustice in society.

2006-07-04 [dragonflye]: And it's not saying that women have no say in any situation either. It's not saying sit back and shut up, it's just saying let the man be in control, but everyone know that the men wear the pants, but the women pick out which pair they're gonna wear.

2006-07-04 [dragonflye]: :)

2006-07-04 [Priest Kel]: Funny. Unfortunately, you're wrong in the implications that women control men

2006-07-04 [Delladreing]: Hah. I've had a man on his knees looking up at me, and I'm short. Telling me I don't have control over the oppoite gender? :P

2006-07-04 [Priest Kel]: There are exceptions to many rules, all I was trying to say was that in God's design for the household the man is to be the head and the woman is to be second. Of course I mean no insult in this, because even though the Lord gave man this authority He also gave man the sense of responsibility and honor to not abuse it and still consider his wife in decisions. When man and woman are married they become one and they no longer have their own separate lives but they have one life.

2006-07-04 [dragonflye]: I was trying to get the conversation going again love. You know I know the way things are to be. I've read that scripture.

2006-07-04 [Priest Kel]: I know you have. ^_^ I was more or less explaining to Fiona. Plus, the people I was reasoning with have gone more than likely never to return.

2006-07-04 [dragonflye]: Ah. I see. I just realized something. I'm still the "technical' owner of this particular wiki page. I can delete anything on it. I forgot I was the one who started this. lol

2006-07-04 [Priest Kel]: In all honesty babe, you only own this front page and the Bible Study

2006-07-04 [dragonflye]: I know. But it wouldn't be here without me babe. I gave you the idea. I'm just rambling.

2006-07-04 [Priest Kel]: No, I had the idea at the same time as you. You just had the know-how

2006-07-04 [Delladreing]: Aw its so cute *watches it go back and forth*

2006-07-04 [Priest Kel]: You should see us play fight. My mother actually thought we were serious one time

2006-07-04 [dragonflye]: I will find the message I sent to you. I'm working on that now. XD

2006-07-04 [Delladreing]: Haha :P aaaw young love ^^

2006-07-04 [Priest Kel]: What message?

2006-07-04 [dragonflye]: Where it was my idea. And ha. I win. search your messages for message # 31176490

2006-07-04 [dragonflye]: I suggested it to you. NOT you to me.

2006-07-04 [Priest Kel]: That doesn't mean I still didn't have the idea to do it without the know-how.

2006-07-04 [dragonflye]: But the way you were talking was as if we just randomly created the same idea at the same time.

2006-07-04 [Priest Kel]: No, I had the idea but without the know how to do it. You also came up with the idea and suggested it

2006-07-04 [dragonflye]: Regardless. We wouldn't be arguing on THIS wiki if it wasn't for me. so XD.

2006-07-04 [Priest Kel]: I still say that this wiki wouldn't exist without the two of us together

2006-07-04 [dragonflye]: I know. I'm just being a pain.

2006-07-04 [Priest Kel]: I know

2006-07-04 [dragonflye]: You like it.

2006-07-05 [Priest Kel]: Only sometimes

2006-07-05 [dragonflye]: Only all the time.

2006-07-06 [Priest Kel]: Bleh

2006-07-20 [Xorital]: Iam not here to flame nor say that your belifs are false, but why do you call it ''truth of the world'' when no one truley knows the truth of the world?

2006-07-20 [Priest Kel]: It is not Truth of the World, but Truth in the Word. As in Truth in the Word of God

2006-07-20 [Xorital]: oh sorry, I misread XD

2006-07-20 [Priest Kel]: No one is perfect, and everyone makes mistakes. Go your way, and blessed be that way.

2006-07-20 [Xorital]: I didnt quite understand what you said, but ill just leave you alone now...bye

2006-07-20 [Priest Kel]: It meant to have a nice day basically

2006-07-20 [Xorital]: Oh ok, thanks, you too.

2006-07-27 [The Blood Angel]: I'm filled with joy to see that there is a wiki dedicated to the worship of God.

2006-07-27 [dragonflye]: We're glad to have you here.

2006-07-27 [Priest Kel]: That we are

2006-08-05 [Ladyeternalflame]: Hi, I'm a Christian, how many of you on here are Christinas? Would you like some info on what it means to be a Christian?

2006-08-07 [Priest Kel]: I believe that all of us that watch this page regularly profess to follow Christ, but we do not hinder those who wish to testify as to what it means to be a Disciple

2006-11-01 [Cia_mar]: not to spam but this is for anyone interested in a
Christian themed contest


Cia's "Can you draw THIS?" Contest

2006-11-10 [Priest Kel]: Welcome then [Kelaria]!

2006-11-10 [Priest Kel]: ^_^

2006-11-19 [de Morte]: This is a sad wiki... YOUR "GOD" DOESN'T EXIST

2006-11-19 [Delladreing]: *glares* Get off of this wiki [de Morte] or so help me I will come back to your pathetic little wiki like I have done in the past, and rip it to fucking shreds like I am capable of.

They avoid your wiki, do them the respect of avoiding theres.

2006-11-19 [w00kie:)]: It should be up for anyone to decide whether or not they feel obligated to follow the realms of any spiritual being! So leave them alone in your infantile anger and try to be productive for once...

2006-11-19 [Xorital]: actualy you have attacked out wiki before, just stating, im not here to attack.

2006-11-19 [Delladreing]: Yes we have, but that was unprovoked. We do not argue with you that there is a God, at least I never have. I have merely argued that your arguments were highly flawed and the people more so.

2006-11-19 [Xorital]: with it being unprovoked is worse...anyway I take my leave,I wish not to cause much more trouble.

2006-11-19 [Priest Kel]: I can not even remember what wiki he was talking about, but even if I had visited that wiki it was merely to defend my faith and show them that their arguement was extremely flawed.

2006-11-19 [Delladreing]: One you got banned from, Gods Little Haters I think it was,

2006-11-23 [Priest Kel]: I got banned from that? I didn't realize that the wiki was still active. I thought that one was destroyed actually.

2006-11-23 [Delladreing]: No, it still thrives. And yes you did :p

2006-11-23 [Priest Kel]: Oh yeah, that is the one that the guards came to me and told me to stop. Yeah, now I remember.

2006-11-23 [Delladreing]: Thats the one.

2006-11-23 [Priest Kel]: Cool

2007-03-20 [Priest Kel]: It has been far too long since I've visited my own wiki

2007-04-05 [dragonflye]: Yeah it has. Gah what's wrong with you? ;)

2007-04-05 [Priest Kel]: No internet access does that sometimes.

2007-04-09 [Ladyeternalflame]: Hi, Happy belated Easter, everybody! I went to church and the sermon was excellent about what Jesus can do for you. I love the pretty Easter lilies and other spring flowers. Please check out my Elfwood gallery. I also have a deviant art gallery.

2007-04-10 [Priest Kel]: Easter? I have just realized that I haven't written an essay about the Pharisetical holiday of Easter and its origins. That shall be next then.

2007-05-22 [Ŧhe Jøker]: so do you think any of us can reach enlightenment? or, do you think Jesus reached it?

2007-05-24 [Priest Kel]: Enlightenment would be oneness with the Father and we can only attain that through His Son the Christ.

2007-05-25 [Ŧhe Jøker]: hmmm "the christ"?

2007-05-27 [dragonflye]: aka the Savior of us all

2007-05-27 [Ŧhe Jøker]: i know who christ is but the way he put it is like hes some sort of item.

2007-05-28 [dragonflye]: He doesn't mean it in that way, I assure you. The way I wrote it is how I believe he meant it. He'll correct me if I'm wrong.

2007-05-28 [Delladreing]: I don't believe it sounded remotely like that, it was merely a way of emphasising Christ for what Christians believe him to be. i.e. The one, The Savior as in, there is only One.

2007-05-28 [Ŧhe Jøker]: but in doing that you put too much emphasis on "the christ" and not the teachings of Jesus

2007-05-28 [Delladreing]: The reference to Christ is surely a reference to all that Christ stands for, this including his teachings also.

2007-05-29 [Priest Kel]: Thank you Fiona, for explaining that. She's right you know. And, as she said, the Christ was named Jesus and taught many things. Without Him there is no Way for He would not have shown us them. Therefore, it is only through Him that we find the Way and attain enlightenment.

2007-05-29 [Delladreing]: You are most welcome :)

2007-06-01 [Ŧhe Jøker]: just because he had those teachings doesnt mean thats all that there is to it, there has to be more that he couldnt teach us...

2007-06-01 [Delladreing]: But the basic foundation of all true Christian belief come from Christ. He was the ultimate teacher. Even as a pagan I recognise that.

2007-06-08 [Priest Kel]: Why couldn't He teach us? He knew when He was to die, so He knew what He had to say before He did. And even afterwards, He was resurrected and stayed on this Earth for awhile appearing to many. So in what span of time would He not have been able to teach what He knew must be taught?

2007-06-11 [Child of God]: I'm curious; what do you mean by reaching Enlightenment? Do you mean in the eastern-religious sense, or the philosophical sense?

2007-06-11 [Ŧhe Jøker]: a little bit of both

2007-06-11 [Child of God]: That's a bit tough to answer then, since Enlightenment for both senses are very different. Enlightenment in the eastern-religious sense means to reach a higher plane of existence, mentally and spiritually. Enlightenment in the philosophical sense means at attain a type of non-religious revelation of wisdom about knowledge and the world. Enlightenment in the philosophic sense means freedom from all "superstition" of religion and dogma, to understand the world and that within it for what it truly is on the physical level, because the physical level is all that there is.

The two notions of enlightenment are incompatible with each other.

So to part answer your question, no Christ did not achieve philosophic enlightenment, since that enlightenment denies any spiritual aspect (that is, any aspect that pertains to something outside of the physical). His teachings were all for the soul, for redemption, which is the very thing philosophical enlightenment was trying to get away from.

From an easter-religious sense, I would have to say no as well. Likely, the type of enlightenment you are thinking of here is similar to a Buddhist's understanding of enlightenment. Most eastern-religious enlightenment ideas came about from the Buddhist idea, since it's one of the oldest eastern religions still practiced (save Hinduism since it was born out of Hinduism). In this sense, I would also say no, since eastern religions attribute a form of disconnect from self and the world as enlightenment. You have to deny yourself completely and utterly of any attributes that make yourself human; pains, pleasures, relationship, opinions, beliefs. Enlightenment is reached when you have completely rid yourself of all these things, when you have escaped your humanity and transcended to another, higher level.

This may sound similar to Christ's teaching by the words used, but the meanings and motivations behind them are largely different. Christ wanted people to get rid of their *sinful* nature, not their *human* nature. Human nature was created good, until we screwed it up in the fall. However, that nature can be redeemed, we can get back our original human nature through Christ. Even though we will never reach that here in the physical earth, we still strive for it because it is what we will have in the new earth. Christ didn't teach us to deny our humanity, but rather to reveal and embrace our *true* humanity, the nature we were created with. That is why He talks about staying away from worldly things. It isn't as in the self-denial sense of eastern religions, but rather because the actions are sinful and distort our true nature.

Christ was very human; he experienced joy, sorrow, anguish, abandonment, pain, love. He bled and cried out when He was being hurt. He wept when His friend died (before He rose that friend). He loved the children set before Him for blessings. He ate and drank everyday, save for when He would fast. He had compassion for those who persecuted and murdered Him. The list could continue, but I believe the point is made. All of these things show just how human Christ was, without having the sinful human nature. And when He ascended into heaven, he wasn't transcending to a higher plane, or breaking a reincarnation cycle, but rather ascending *back* to where He had come from. Even when the transfiguration had taken place on the Mount of Olives, His true form. It was a "change that glorifies and exalts" (according to the dictionary), rather then "exist(ing) above and independent of material experience or the universe."

It may seems that we put too much emphasis on "Christ" but that is who He was. That is why we follow Him. He was the Christ, the chosen of God. If He were just a wise man who taught good things, we wouldn't be following Him. It was because He was the Christ, the Messiah, that Son of God, that we do follow Him. To believe and follow Christ's teachings are to not forget who He was. That is why so much emphasis is placed on Jesus being Christ. His title legitimize His teachings because of who He was, and recognizing that He *is* the Christ, the Son of God, is the central point to all of His teachings. To follow what He taught, you have to acknowledge who He is.

2007-06-11 [Ŧhe Jøker]: im not saying i dont acknowledge who he is, quite the contrary, but yall put too much emphasis on the man himself.

2007-06-11 [Delladreing]: ...The "Man himself" is the reason for Christianity....hence why its called Christianity.

2007-06-11 [Ŧhe Jøker]: so then what was it called before christ? during the old testament?

2007-06-11 [Delladreing]: ...Judaism...which although being the founding stones, is not what Christianity is.

2007-06-11 [Ŧhe Jøker]: then only difference is one single man.

2007-06-11 [Delladreing]: To quote a friend "the stupid it burns."

One single man? ...ok so....the entire faith is called Christianity. I'll put that in bold in case you miss that. He was not a single man, he was THE man. Christ was THE man behind the forming of Christianity from Jewish tradition and religious belief. There are profound differences in Jewish and Christian beliefs and traditions, Christianity is in the evolutionary sense (If there are any Creationists in here, I SO did not intend that "pun") the progression on from the Jewish belief system.

You can argue that the Churches and the Word was spread by other people, you can argue that were it not for them Christianity would not spread like wild fire (thank you Emperor Constantine for that one) but you cannot deny the fact that the teachings of CHRIST, thats who the religion is based on in case thats been forgotten already, had a massive impact on the religion and still continues to do so.

He was not "a single guy" he was meant to be the incarnation of God in human form (no not son, incarnation, God himself, The Ultimate Man)

Argh too hot for this >.<

2007-06-14 [Child of God]: ...Well said Delandreing and with such fire too ^-^'

But ya, we put the emphasis on the "man" Himself, because that is what Christianity is based on, the "man" Himself. You can't have the teachings of Christ without having Him, and those teachings aren't valid unless He, Himself, lived what He taught. The man is the Word, and the Word is the man.

2007-06-14 [Priest Kel]: Well spoken, I only wish I could add more but what could I add when you've hit all the points needed to be touched upon?
But he does have a point and he is correct in a sense for the difference between Judaism and Christianity is one man: The Messiah. Jews still seek Him, where as Christians accept that He has already come. In fact, the whole of both faiths place such an emphasis on the Son of God (yes Fiona, the Son. The Son created all that is, but the Father created the Son. That is why Christ is considered the ONLY begotten Son of God) that you could consider them both to be centered upon that one man. The Father told the Son what to tell us and He gave us His commandments to follow and as such we do, guided by the Holy Spirit.

2007-06-15 [Delladreing]: I still stand by the fact that he was an incarnation, which was interperated as a "son" but then again I suppose a son is the extension of the father.

I'm by no means Christian as you know so it doesn't really matter what I believe :P

2007-06-18 [Priest Kel]: And as that is the case, I find no real reason to argue the matter with you. I shall just have to write an essay on that sooner or later. I'm definitely procrastinating on those essays aren't I?

2007-06-18 [Delladreing]: Yes you are, but you have every right to be :P

2007-06-23 [Priest Kel]: How is it that I have a right to procrastinate with the essays? Shouldn't I be doing the work that I must do when I must do it instead of putting it off?

2007-06-23 [Delladreing]: Procrastination enables you to think and plan it out more thoroughly. I've been "procrastinating" on a project very much like this for 2 years now.

2007-06-25 [Priest Kel]: Good point, yet still I feel guilty about it

2007-06-25 [Delladreing]: I'd rather take my time over them than make a dogs dinner of them, and I'm sure you would too :P

2007-07-02 [Priest Kel]: Still, the real problem is the fact that I really haven't worked on them at all. If I were writing them and just hadn't gotten around to posting it would be different.

2007-07-25 [dragonflye]: Hello, you have a 9 month old. you don't really get time to do it anymore. :)

2007-07-25 [Delladreing]: Eeeexactly. How is the little beauty anyway?

2007-07-27 [Priest Kel]: Except for when I'm on my break at work, which is when I've been working on these things.

2007-07-31 [dragonflye]: true. She wonderful, btw. She's into everything now! crawling! Her favorite word right now is "hey!"

2007-07-31 [Priest Kel]: I think I would know that.

2007-07-31 [Delladreing]: Aw how cute :)

2007-07-31 [Priest Kel]: It's great.

2007-10-15 [dragonflye]: I wasn't talking to you andrew I was talking to fiona.

2007-10-16 [Priest Kel]: And that would be because you never talk to me :p

2007-10-21 [dragonflye]: I could say something really mean right now but it's rather innapropriate for this wiki.

2007-10-24 [Priest Kel]: Much.

2011-04-28 [Danboo]: Hmm... this is interesting.. Does anyone know hebrew?

2011-04-28 [Priest Kel]: I wish I did

2011-04-28 [Danboo]: its a hard language XD

2011-04-28 [Priest Kel]: I just haven't put any effort into it

2011-04-29 [Danboo]: even with effort its hard..

2011-04-30 [Priest Kel]: I still haven't put any effort into learning it lol