Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Secret sayings, secret knowledge is characteristic of Gnosticism which was a rival system to Christianity.
The gospel of Thomas was never accepted by the church as canonical. And one of the reasons why is verse 114.
114 Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life." Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven."
There is nothing 'spiritual' about that statement. It is blatantly anti-feminine.
Sitting on a bench was I, and opposite me was an elder Tzaddik Rabbi, (sitting on the bench was he). And we were at an old train station, watching for the train we were, and as we sat there in the depot this early twenties femme strolls up with her little brother in hand, going on about whether the Father in heaven is really real or not. The older sister was engaged in a clearly futile attempt to explain to her little brother how the idea of a heavenly Father was just a religious myth propagated by men from time immemorial to enslave the masses with guilt and the unhealthy fear of torment in hell if the people did not heed the authority of the P'rushim, Scribes, and Elders, (both the modern and the ancient). However the young man was simply having no part of it, and was insistent upon the fact that his heavenly Father is really real because the Bible tells him so; and he knew it from the first time mom and pop had said it to be true. Finally the young man looks over at the Tzaddik sitting next to me and asks him what he thinks about whether he truly has a heavenly Father or not. The older sister then interrupts her little brother, attempting to stop him from going any further, saying, Don't bother the old man, and you know you are not supposed to talk to strangers! Then the Tzaddik takes a glance at the older sister, looks at the young man who could not have been more than eight years old, and with a smile he says to the young man, Child, guard your spirit, and never put away the wife of your youth: for your heavenly Father despises putting away and hates divorce. And the young man replies to the Tzaddik, A wife? Haha, how can I be married Sir? Can't you see I'm just a boy? I'm only eight years old! And the Tzaddik answers the lad, saying, Surely you have a wife, even the wife of your bosom who is like unto your own soul; and she has that spirit of belief about her whose voice I hear as I listen to you speak: the same is that spirit of a child like faith of all the children of the Great King. But beware, and guard your spirit; for if you put away the wife of covenant of your youth then you will surely grow up just as your older sister, being wedded to a cruel master. And the old sea hag says to the Tzaddik, "Hey wait a minute Mister, neither am I married, I have no husband!" And the Rabbi says to the sea hag, You have well said, "I have no husband", for you have had five andres-gibborim; and the one you now have is not your husband, in that you spoke truly! Five are fallen, one is, and the other is not yet come; but beware the seventh, for his name is Legion. So I spoke up, and I said to the Tzaddik sitting next to me, Rabbi, send her to the back of the train when we board, for because of her, my skin crawls. And the Rabbi says to me, The name of the lad is Symeon, the name of his sister is Maryah, and one day her name shall be changed to Maryamme; but from where do I know you? And with that my soul is crushed! And with this the Tzemach Tzedek traverses the last train home; and we three follow in his train, his Nazarite hair is white like wool, as white as snow!
If I contradict the Word of God with what I say, please do show me. I honestly want to know if I'm in any error because I am quite imperfect, so if you can show me from the Word of God where my error is I will most gladly listen. And so should all Christians for that matter be humbly obedient to Gods Word, but does the Word of God still bear any authority as an objective source of unchanging truth?
Thanks Mike for clarifying for me that the source of much of the spiritual sounding heresy here is due to a form of gnosticism that misinterprets the Bible with a pretence to secret spiritual knowledge others dont have. It had been puzzling me lately and its a sad reality that satan puffs up the proud flesh with these deceptions so people think themselves spiritually wise when infact they are highmindedly set against the Word of God and therefore God Himself. And that becomes apparent when their philosophy directly contradicts the plain Word of God yet they will not humbly bow down before it but rather try to twist it to fit their philosophy. Quite a deceiving form of godliness actually.
There is no contradiction but rather a lack of knowledge and understanding:
Romans 7:14-25
14 For we know that the Torah is spiritual, but I am carnal, [fleshly] sold under sin.
15 For what I work, I know not: for what I wish, that I do not practice, but what I hate, that I do.
16 But if I do what I do not wish; I agree with the Torah that it is good.
17 And now, it is no longer I that work it, but the sin dwelling in me [that is, in my flesh].
18 For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwells no good: for to will is present with me, but to work the good, I do not find.
19 For the good that I wish to do, I do not do; but the evil I do not wish to do, that I practice.
20 And if I do that which I do not wish, it is no longer I who work it, but the sin dwelling in me [that is, in my flesh].
21 I therefore find the Torah, [a teaching] that to me who would do good, evil is present [that is, in my flesh].
22 For I delight in the Torah of Elohim according to the inward man:
23 But I see another Torah with my members, [that is, concerning my flesh] battling against the Torah of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the Torah that is for sin which is in my members.
24 Wretched man that I am: what shall deliver me from the body of this death?
25 The grace of Elohim by way of Messiah Yeshua our Master: verily therefore I myself with the mind do serve the Torah of Elohim, [Horeb - above] but concerning the flesh, the Torah of sin [Sinai - below].
It is about putting to death, mortifying, or putting to sleep the deeds of the body, (Romans 8:13), and thus your members which are upon your own "land" or earth, (Colossians 3:5). If you are willing to put her to sleep then she will be restored into a kingdom wherein dwells righteousness when the Son of man comes, (you will receive "her" again). And, again, Yeshua teaches this:
Yeshua Says, Think not that I am come to spread peace upon the Land; I came not to cast peace but a machaira-sword, (of spiritual warfare, Revelation 6:4). For I am come to sever a man from his father, and the daughter from her mother, and the daughter in law from her mother in law, (Deuteronomy 13:6-10). And the enemies of a man shall be those of his own household! (Micah 7:5-6). The one loving father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and the one loving son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and the one not taking up his stake and following after me is not worthy of me: the one finding his soul shall destroy her, and the one tearing down-destroying his soul for my sake shall find her, (Matthew 10:34-39).
Originally Posted by Mike555 There is nothing 'spiritual' about that statement. It is blatantly anti-feminine.
Ironic, isn't it?...
What is ironic is that it is actually the theology of Mike555 which is misogynistic and you apparently cannot not see it for what it is, (unless of course you are being sarcastic?). The very fact that Mike555 only sees himself as a male reveals that he only sees according to the outward flesh and physical. Perhaps therefore you should ask Mike555 how he understands the following passage statements from Paul, better yet, I will ask him myself:
@Mike555
1 Corinthians 14:32-37 KJV
32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
What say you Mike555? Please explain the above according to your theology and understanding: are women allowed to speak out in the congregations or not? or do you simply pretend that passages such as this do not exist? And again the following:
1 Timothy 2:11-15 KJV
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
What about this passage Mike555? Can a woman teach? Would that be usurping authority over a man in your understanding? And can a woman only be saved through child bearing? If you wish not to be seen as a misogynist the only option for you now is to see and hear what I have been saying herein by way of the writings which have been quoted, (including Thomas). The reality is that this understanding goes all the way back to the very beginning and what the creation story is truly teaching.
So as example from here in this thread: Rbbi1 can become a son of Elohim while you remain in outer darkness because you neutered your heavenly Father? Yes, it appears that way.
God is Spirit and therefore has no gender. He is neither male or female. 'Father' is anthropopathic terminology, language of accommodation.
(114)
(1) Simon Peter said to them: "Let Mary go away from us, for women are not worthy of life."
(2) Jesus said: "Look, I will draw her in so as to make her male,
so that she too may become a living male spirit, similar to you."
(3) (But I say to you): "Every woman who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."
I'm fairly certain that neither Peter or Jesus ever said that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Again, contrary to your claim, there is no distinction between a male and a female spirit. The word spirit is always neuter. The idea that in order for a woman to be saved her spirit must be changed to a male spirit is simply not Biblical.
When Jesus said that He was dismissing His spirit into the hands of the Father, the word was πνεῦμά - pneuma, and is neuter. Not masculine, not feminine, but neuter.
The gospel of Thomas was not written by Thomas. And again, the gospel of Thomas clearly states that women are not worthy of life.
And again, no, Paul does not say the same thing as the writer of the gospel of Thomas put into the mouth of Peter. Peter, according to the author of the gospel of Thomas allegedly said that women are not worthy of life (which you attempt to allegorize into meaning that Peter was referring to the flesh). Paul on the other hand was simply saying that male and female, Jew and Gentile, slave and freemen are all equal in Christ. Paul in no way implied that a woman had to make herself male in any sense of the word in order to enter the kingdom of heaven. What Paul said, and what the gospel of Thomas says about women are in opposition to each other.
Gospel of Thomas (114) Simon Peter said to them: Let Mary go forth from among us, for women are not worthy of the life. Jesus said: Behold, I shall lead her, that I may make her male, in order that she also may become a living spirit like you males. For every woman who makes herself male shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.
This presumably is speaking of Mary Magdalene who was already a follower of Christ, and already saved.
The idea that a woman has to make herself male in any sense of the word in order to enter into the kingdom of God is simply not Biblical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Christ (male) as the head of the body, head of the church, does not make the church symbolically male. As Paul made clear, there is simply no distinction between male and female, Jew or Gentile, slave or freeman. In other words, there is equally in Christ.
The Gospel of Thomas is anti-feminine, but Jesus never was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Spirit is never masculine. I've already been over this. The word 'spirit' - πνεῦμά - pneuma, is neuter.
The gospel of Thomas is a gnostic or proto-gnostic writing that claims to have secret sayings given to Thomas.
Secret sayings, secret knowledge is characteristic of Gnosticism which was a rival system to Christianity.
The gospel of Thomas was never accepted by the church as canonical. And one of the reasons why is verse 114.
114 Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life." Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven."
There is nothing 'spiritual' about that statement. It is blatantly anti-feminine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by daqq
What is ironic is that it is actually the theology of Mike555 which is misogynistic and you apparently cannot not see it for what it is, (unless of course you are being sarcastic?). The very fact that Mike555 only sees himself as a male reveals that he only sees according to the outward flesh and physical. Perhaps therefore you should ask Mike555 how he understands the following passage statements from Paul, better yet, I will ask him myself:
@Mike555
1 Corinthians 14:32-37 KJV
32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
What say you Mike555? Please explain the above according to your theology and understanding: are women allowed to speak out in the congregations or not? or do you simply pretend that passages such as this do not exist? And again the following:
1 Timothy 2:11-15 KJV
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
What about this passage Mike555? Can a woman teach? Would that be usurping authority over a man in your understanding? And can a woman only be saved through child bearing? If you wish not to be seen as a misogynist the only option for you now is to see and hear what I have been saying herein by way of the writings which have been quoted, (including Thomas). The reality is that this understanding goes all the way back to the very beginning and what the creation story is truly teaching.
Because I've pointed out that the Gospel of Thomas is not canonical and was never accepted as authoritative by the early church, and because I've pointed out that this statement in the Gospel of Thomas,
114 Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life." Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven."
is anti-feminine, you now attempt to portray me as a misogynist, as a man who hates and mistreats women? What Paul wrote in the two passages you posted has nothing to do with what is written in the Gospel of Thomas.
The Gospel of Thomas is not authoritative, it is not canonical, and it was rejected by the early church.
Eusebius Church History (Book III)
Chapter 25. The Divine Scriptures that are accepted and those that are not.
6. But we have nevertheless felt compelled to give a catalogue of these also, distinguishing those works which according to ecclesiastical tradition are true and genuine and commonly accepted, from those others which, although not canonical but disputed, are yet at the same time known to most ecclesiastical writers— we have felt compelled to give this catalogue in order that we might be able to know both these works and those that are cited by the heretics under the name of the apostles, including, for instance, such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or of any others besides them, and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles, which no one belonging to the succession of ecclesiastical writers has deemed worthy of mention in his writings.
7. And further, the character of the style is at variance with apostolic usage, and both the thoughts and the purpose of the things that are related in them are so completely out of accord with true orthodoxy that they clearly show themselves to be the fictions of heretics. Wherefore they are not to be placed even among the rejected writings, but are all of them to be cast aside as absurd and impious. [Bolded mine]
While you personally may hold the Gospel of Thomas in high regard, the early church did not, and it is not a part of the New Testament canon. And verse 114 is anti-feminine.
God is Spirit and therefore has no gender. He is neither male or female. 'Father' is anthropopathic terminology, language of accommodation.
Now you essentially deny that "Father" has gender? You even used "He" to formulate your denial! (lol). What you are trying to force is ludicrous because it relies solely on grammar and ignores context. The creation explains by example most of these things and that is the way it is given for man(kind) to understand. While it may be true that Elohim does not actually have gender that does not discount how things are actually explained for us in the writings, (so that us average human beings can actually understand what is said). If you wish to deny reality then perhaps you need to find some other "canon" because you are denying the general understanding of the Book you claim to uphold while twisting what it teaches to your own private benefit. This is now at the point of absurdity just so that you may continue believing what you will.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Because I've pointed out that the Gospel of Thomas is not canonical and was never accepted as authoritative by the early church, and because I've pointed out that this statement in the Gospel of Thomas,
114 Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life." Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven."
is anti-feminine, you now attempt to portray me as a misogynist, as a man who hates and mistreats women? What Paul wrote in the two passages you posted has nothing to do with what is written in the Gospel of Thomas.
The Gospel of Thomas is not authoritative, it is not canonical, and it was rejected by the early church.
Eusebius Church History (Book III)
Chapter 25. The Divine Scriptures that are accepted and those that are not.
6. But we have nevertheless felt compelled to give a catalogue of these also, distinguishing those works which according to ecclesiastical tradition are true and genuine and commonly accepted, from those others which, although not canonical but disputed, are yet at the same time known to most ecclesiastical writers— we have felt compelled to give this catalogue in order that we might be able to know both these works and those that are cited by the heretics under the name of the apostles, including, for instance, such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or of any others besides them, and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles, which no one belonging to the succession of ecclesiastical writers has deemed worthy of mention in his writings.
7. And further, the character of the style is at variance with apostolic usage, and both the thoughts and the purpose of the things that are related in them are so completely out of accord with true orthodoxy that they clearly show themselves to be the fictions of heretics. Wherefore they are not to be placed even among the rejected writings, but are all of them to be cast aside as absurd and impious. [Bolded mine]
While you personally may hold the Gospel of Thomas in high regard, the early church did not, and it is not a part of the New Testament canon. And verse 114 is anti-feminine.
And I am going to leave it at that.
Awe . . . so now that a critical inspection of your own doctrine becomes necessary you are going run from these important issues which might actually help you in your understanding? You have no answers for those passages and statements from Paul? But we were just getting started. Have you never studied the creation account from nothing other than your own preconceived literal physical viewpoint? As I said this goes all the way back to the beginning. Sorry if it buries you now that you have decided to leave but you started it so it may as well be somewhat explained whether you want to hear it or not.
There are two ways the following passage may be understood:
Genesis 1:27
27 And Elohim created man (ha-'adam - mankind) in His own image, in the image of Elohim created He him: zakar-male and nqebah-female He created them.
1) The divisive anti-feminine carnal man view:
"And Elohim created man in His own image, in the image of Elohim created He him: (some of them) zakar-male and (some of them) nqebah-female He created them."
2) The Prophet Jeremiah (31:22) New Covenant view:
"And Elohim created mankind in His own image, in the image of Elohim created He him: (every one of them) zakar-male and nqebah-female He created them."
Whether one wishes to admit it openly or not the above two examples are what takes place in the mind of the reader, and often such a mental process is not even recognized by the reader because it happens so automatically: it is a mental decision which is automatically made depending upon paradigm or mindset. You say that Elohim has no gender but you read His words as if they are spoken by a man according to the flesh, (and we know that Elohim is not a man), otherwise you would automatically see option number two above as the more proper way to comprehend it in your mind as you read it.
Now you essentially deny that "Father" has gender? You even used "He" to formulate your denial! (lol). What you are trying to force is ludicrous because it relies solely on grammar and ignores context. The creation explains by example most of these things and that is the way it is given for man(kind) to understand. While it may be true that Elohim does not actually have gender that does not discount how things are actually explained for us in the writings, (so that us average human beings can actually understand what is said). If you wish to deny reality then perhaps you need to find some other "canon" because you are denying the general understanding of the Book you claim to uphold while twisting what it teaches to your own private benefit. This is now at the point of absurdity just so that you may continue believing what you will.
Awe . . . so now that a critical inspection of your own doctrine becomes necessary you are going run from these important issues which might actually help you in your understanding? You have no answers for those passages and statements from Paul? But we were just getting started. Have you never studied the creation account from nothing other than your own preconceived literal physical viewpoint? As I said this goes all the way back to the beginning. Sorry if it buries you now that you have decided to leave but you started it so it may as well be somewhat explained whether you want to hear it or not.
There are two ways the following passage may be understood:
Genesis 1:27
27 And Elohim created man (ha-'adam - mankind) in His own image, in the image of Elohim created He him: zakar-male and nqebah-female He created them.
1) The divisive anti-feminine carnal man view:
"And Elohim created man in His own image, in the image of Elohim created He him: (some of them) zakar-male and (some of them) nqebah-female He created them."
2) The Prophet Jeremiah (31:22) New Covenant view:
"And Elohim created mankind in His own image, in the image of Elohim created He him: (every one of them) zakar-male and nqebah-female He created them."
Whether one wishes to admit it openly or not the above two examples are what takes place in the mind of the reader, and often such a mental process is not even recognized by the reader because it happens so automatically: it is a mental decision which is automatically made depending upon paradigm or mindset. You say that Elohim has no gender but you read His words as if they are spoken by a man according to the flesh, (and we know that Elohim is not a man), otherwise you would automatically see option number two above as the more proper way to comprehend it in your mind as you read it.
The reason the masculine pronoun was used is because PATRIARCHAL MEN wrote the story and they could and would never say SHE or MOTHER--it had to be HE and FATHER..
Modern society continues the use of the masculine because the idea of an androgynous entity "fathering" a child with a married woman is disgusting so society insists on HE--still not sure how they reconcile adultery and fathering a child with a married woman--I tried that once and was excommunicated from the church--you'd a thought the Pastor would have understood that is how god works and if the pastor was not going to sow the field, another would in his place...
Now you essentially deny that "Father" has gender? You even used "He" to formulate your denial! (lol). What you are trying to force is ludicrous because it relies solely on grammar and ignores context. The creation explains by example most of these things and that is the way it is given for man(kind) to understand. While it may be true that Elohim does not actually have gender that does not discount how things are actually explained for us in the writings, (so that us average human beings can actually understand what is said). If you wish to deny reality then perhaps you need to find some other "canon" because you are denying the general understanding of the Book you claim to uphold while twisting what it teaches to your own private benefit. This is now at the point of absurdity just so that you may continue believing what you will.
Awe . . . so now that a critical inspection of your own doctrine becomes necessary you are going run from these important issues which might actually help you in your understanding? You have no answers for those passages and statements from Paul? But we were just getting started. Have you never studied the creation account from nothing other than your own preconceived literal physical viewpoint? As I said this goes all the way back to the beginning. Sorry if it buries you now that you have decided to leave but you started it so it may as well be somewhat explained whether you want to hear it or not.
There are two ways the following passage may be understood:
Genesis 1:27
27 And Elohim created man (ha-'adam - mankind) in His own image, in the image of Elohim created He him: zakar-male and nqebah-female He created them.
1) The divisive anti-feminine carnal man view:
"And Elohim created man in His own image, in the image of Elohim created He him: (some of them) zakar-male and (some of them) nqebah-female He created them."
2) The Prophet Jeremiah (31:22) New Covenant view:
"And Elohim created mankind in His own image, in the image of Elohim created He him: (every one of them) zakar-male and nqebah-female He created them."
Whether one wishes to admit it openly or not the above two examples are what takes place in the mind of the reader, and often such a mental process is not even recognized by the reader because it happens so automatically: it is a mental decision which is automatically made depending upon paradigm or mindset. You say that Elohim has no gender but you read His words as if they are spoken by a man according to the flesh, (and we know that Elohim is not a man), otherwise you would automatically see option number two above as the more proper way to comprehend it in your mind as you read it.
You have now tried to imply that I am a misogynist, a woman hater. But you are the one who thinks that in order for a woman to enter the kingdom of heaven she must spiritually become a man.
My ''doctrine'' is not in view and is not the issue. The issue concerns the fact that the Gospel of Thomas is not canonical and was never accepted as such by the church. Again, verse 114 is anti-feminine. And since that fact has been established, I am leaving it at that.
Again, God, being Spirit, has no gender. Gender terminology applied to God is simply anthropomorphic language of accommodation which the Bible makes frequent use of. Human characteristics are often applied to God which He doesn't actually possess, both in terms of anatomy and emotion, in order to make Him somewhat comprehensible to the finite mind of man.
Last edited by Michael Way; 12-06-2016 at 09:38 AM..
My ''doctrine'' is not in view and is not the issue. The issue concerns the fact that the Gospel of Thomas is not canonical and was never accepted as such by the church. And since that fact has been established, I am leaving it at that.
Yes, your doctrine is in view because you made it so yourself when you made an incorrect judgment on the doctrine of the writer of the Gospel of Thomas. If you did not wish to have your doctrine come into view then you should not have offered up your opinion of the doctrine of another outside yourself. Your doctrine does not agree with the scripture which you claim to uphold and this is shown by the fact that you now refuse to answer to the questions put forward to you concerning the doctrine of Paul, in very plain clear statements, which I quoted from the most common KJV translation, (and if you wish to post some other translation of the passages concerned, so as to explain those statements, that is fine too). This entire episode is about doctrine and that is also why I am sharing my understanding from the scripture and writings which I have posted. You have placed yourself outside the scripture for inaccurately judging both my doctrine and the doctrines of those I have quoted. You do not get a free pass to claim others and their doctrines are false while your own private doctrine is kept off the table because as soon as you judge a doctrine you have compared your own doctrine to those which you reject. So far your doctrine does not even line up with what is written in what you consider your own canon.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
