Then this would mean that every woman that menstruated were unclean.

Obviously it means that the woman was living a life of sin.

Well you tell me.

Would you think it would be more likely for a god to perform miracles over a mortal woman?

Please tell me you don't think of her being "unclean for seven years" means that she was menstruating constantly for this period of time.

Come on people. You have about as much scriptural evidence to show that Jesus was gay as about as much as I have to show that he was an astronaut.

I never stated, or implied that the man was gay.

And, just for the record, according to old hebrew religious law, a woman who was having her period WAS unclean. And no man who touched her was allowed in temple until he had performed a ritual of cleansing. You really should spend some time reading that book you place so much faith in.

And, if you can believe the rest of the fairy tales in the book, why not a 7 year menstral flow?

Yeah I know. It was mainly directed at the others who thought he could be gay.

1) I knew this already
2) This has nothing to do with what I was talking about.


Like I said, its obviously meaning here that she was living a life of sin. Otherwise every woman would be considered unclean. And even so, how would it be a sin if she were menstruating for seven years?!

You say I need to spend more time reading, yet you think that this passage is referring that the woman has had her period for seven strait years!

you have a bible handy? You know the passage I was referring to, right? Do me a favor and post the passage in question. Let us let the populace decide.

It has everything to do with what you were talking about. If, the woman had an irregular period, she wouldn't be able to predict when she would have it. Couple that with heavy 'spotting' (ask your girlfriend or close female relative if you don't know what that means ), and the concensus of the time would be that she was unclean.

And, further more, lepers were considered both unclean, and punished for their sins. Were they living sinful lives as well?

allright to set the record straight mary magdalen WAS NOT a whore! she was Jewish Royalty.

and even though there is no KJV scriptural evidence. what about the books banned from the bible? and the Nag Hamaddi? It is my opinion that the Catholic church edited the bible to their liking.

but my reasoning that I believe Jesus was married

#1: it would be VERY odd for a jewish Male to not be married

#2: all rabbi's HAD to be married

#3: since Jesus was jewish Royalty I imagine that marriage would be pressured even more.

#4: if he didnt he would be breaking one of the teachings of God
"be fruitfull and Multiply" (get hitched,have kids)

^^ and..

#5) The Davinci Code

If this is the passage you mean, it is talking about a woman being unclean (in terms of her being on her period).

"When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening." (Leviticus 15:19)

But we see in Luke...

"And a woman was there who had been subject to bleeding for twelve years, but no one could heal her. She came up behind him, and touched the edge of his cloak, and immediately her bleeding stopped" (Luke 8:43-44)


I'm assuming this is talking about a woman being on her period for twelve years. So I suppose you are correct. I however thought someone said a woman was "unclean for ____ (x amount of time)."

A woman can still be "unclean" even if she does not have her period. We see this in Leviticus...

"When a man lies with a woman and there is an emission of semen, both must bathe with water, and they will be [B]unclean till evening."[/B] (Leviticus 15:18)

Of course this could be between man and wife, and two persons that were not married.

Now if a woman did this (married or not) she would be unclean.

If she did this constantly, then I suppose she would not be cleansed untill she stopped and she would be cleansed that following evening. So being unclean can mean both things (being on her period, or having sex). Again I was under the impression that someone meant "being unclean for seven years." It could mean either way. (Being unclean due to sex, or menstruation).


And we see here...

Galatians 5:19-25: "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit."

So we see that it also means an uncleanliness due to sin.

We also see the definition of "unclean".

un·clean

un·clean [un kln]
adj
1. dirty: dirty or unsanitary
2. unchaste: sinful, especially involving or guilty of committing a sexual sin
3. religion religiously or ritually impure: not pure according to religious rules or rituals

Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

So, like I said, it depends on how its used in the scripture. It could mean adultry, fornication and prostitution or menstruation.




You are correct. But it depends on the meaning.



Well, if they were punished for their sins, then yes. Obviously they were sinning.

i find what you have to say here makes me laugh out loud when i compare it to the quote from proverbs you have under your profile. Everyone has told you so much that you believe as though you think there could be nothing else. A whore indeed!

Mary of Magdalene was from a noble family and was concidered highly enough by Jesus to become his companion, which is the word of the time of translation of spouse

The whole bit about the whore is inferred, there are 0 references to Mary of Magdalene having any untword actions, such a whorin' in the bible.

The only remotly negative referrence regarding Mary is that Jesus cast seven demons from her.
He was not activly pulling of Johns!
It could have been healing illness or changing her mental state to a more posative outlook.
There are no sexual refferenceing regarding Mary magdalene in the entire bible.

After that quote from proverbs, i might use the bible as that second opinion that makes the first seem less correct. Then concider what you were told about Mary, and Jesus for that matter. Because the bible could be your very different second opinion, from what you apparently learned from whoever was spewing out such bull honkey.

Do you believe that prophets as such are not human? Because by definition, they are, and are supposed to be. Falliable, marrying, the whole she bang of life, but being noble and sacrificial and completely selfless, but still human and still ***king it all up from time to time.

i mean for pete's sake how much understanding does it take to love Peter of all people, even knowing what he will do to your message after you die. Good man that Jesus. Good woman too, which is why she was to be the first popess, the priestess to carry Jesus' message who was driven away in fear for her life as being the wife of a crucified man and with Peter placing control of the CHRISTian church in the hands of men and altering it to his liking.

It is no mistake that all of the books of the bible left out of the cannonization make Peter look really, really bad.

It would actually be contradicting the words written of the impression of him that was maintained verebally for over 100 years, so he could have been gay. Heck he could have been gay AND had a wife!

On top of that implying that anyone you havent paid for sex is a whore?
Please, let's show a little respect! For you have not done Mary for money and if you think you have you are crazy.

Understand that this book has aided along with classist tersostorone filled insecure males, to keep women in slavery in virtually every part of the world at some point in time and in some places of the world, to this day.
So please show a little respect.

So based on the opinion of someone who is not a prophet and said she was unclean, you say this is truth, did Jesus, the prophet not see her value and allow himself to be intimatly touched?

Who do you believe? Pharisee or Jesus. He had to know what kind of woman was touching him, he allowed her to work with him from the moment of meeting until she was present at his death. The only evidence suggesting what happened to her is that she may have shown up pregnant or with a new child in portugal.



Calling a woman a whore has always been the most common false acusation. When i was in high school and a virgin, i was called a whore all the time, though not really having much to do with sex at the time i was not. Who knows, maybe Pharisee was mad because he tryed to get some out of her and couldn't even get it by paying so he tried to bad mouth her to Jesus, who knows, but with the sheer overt inaccuracies and changes in the bible i wouldn't trust it fir all your historical info.



So anything anyone else interpretes of the bible may or may not be so and it is impossible to tell, but the whore parts are the only parts that are clear?
What church do you attend anyway, oppress women for Jeasus meetings?

no, because the da vici code got their info from other sources such as "Holy Blood,Holy Grail"

I have a very detailed source at home that I use. and no, it isnt TDVC.

and since Mary Magdalene was Jewish Royalty she must have had plenty of money. prostitution was and still is primarilly a job of the poor and desperrate. (for lack of better terms). Therefore I highly doubt that she was a whore.

This was not implyed in anyway by ai guardian, he said Jesus may have been gay, he never said every person who loves Jesus is gay. You keep bringing it up as much as the whore thing, wish both were true, do ya? You should seek sexual counciling.



No, don't be silly. Following someones message does not necessarily mean following their sexual preferences with yours identically, that is a sex cult. No one claimed this of christianity stop implying it.



i for one wouldn't.
What if einstein were gay! would it make any of his theories or discoveries less significant?
That would be the silly assumption.

the love that he had of everyone and the apostle's was like how one loves their family.

Some of the gnostic texts found pre carbon date the oldest bible texts, why is that more acepted than the gnostic gospels which ring more true for less alteration and by which the reasons why they were omitted are clear, they convey Jesus' teachings but without the bias of St. Peter and others.

The "cut gospels are called the Nag Hamidi Texts / library or they are called the gnostic Gospels.
You want to know about Mary, read her gospel, or were you unaware of that one?
How about the stories in the ghospel of Thomas which lay out clearly what was cut out and why just by the telling of the tale itself.

You have a cruel mind to remit Jesus to such a sexless life. Sex is not perversion as sex is a natural act.

ok, quick bible study folks, There were some of a lot of gospels canonized into somthing similar to the bible we have today, that text has been altered to become it. If certain things were chosen to be in this book it means things were also NOT chosen to be in this book, these texts were hidden in a jar and discovered by Nag Hamidi in 1947(i think, around then anyway) Some of these writings are older than the writings that became the bible and have no reason to be dicounted, unless you read them.

My favorite story, and i will have to annotate this later as i have loaned my copy out, is in the gospel of Thomas, i believe maybe the gospel of Mary. There is a scene in which Peter says to Levi, "Do you really think that Jesus holds her in such a higher regard than us that he will kiss her on the...(missing peice) And levi responds, "Not only could he, he does" Every book ommited makes it impossible for men to take control, for a system of distancing people from the ears of god through means of a caste system t exist, to use religion for political control. All of these things would have been made impossible by the inclusion of the rest of the story.

Religion would not be as we know it today.

Um, and thats why I showed scripture for my thoughts. Of course it can be seen both ways.


So, you are saying that a woman from a noble family could never be a prostitute?

Go back and read the scripture. Like I said it didn't say she was a whore. It says she lead a life a sin. If you read what Pharisee said, you will get a slight hint on what kind of woman she was. To tell you the truth I don't really care if she was a whore or not. It was just an opinion, but it could very well be a possibility.

Show me some scripture to completely eliminate this possibility.

Ummm ok?

And what gave you the implication that someone taught me this? Maybe its just my personal opinion on the matter. I guess this just completly slipped your mind.


Jesus was perfect. The other prophets were not.

And where did I say this?

huh?

Yes, and you should seek a class in english to learn how to spell.

Why don't you let AI answer his own questions? We pretty much settled this issue and you insist on bringing it back up. Why don't you point your finger at the person that claimed Jesus was gay in the first place? (with nothing to prove this) Now you are just contradicting youself. You throw a hissy fit with me for saying that some lady was a whore,(with at least a shread of scripture to imply this) but yet you defend someone who called Jesus gay(with nothing). And he very well implied those things.

Yeah, right.

Thank you for proving my point.

No most of the women of that area who were noble were not prositututes because their family would have killed them for the disgrace.
You are pulling that she was a whore out of one person saying in one tiny part of the bible that she was unclean, which went unverified by the prophet at hand even in this one instance, that she was unclean let alone what was mean't by that.

Judgemental much?



That is just it, it can not be done, there is no such thing as a sexual reference to Mary magdelene, i can not prove it's absence without you actually reading the book to see that it ain't there, honey.


By the way, do you not see the irony of you arguing somehting you admit could really go with either way and still have a quote about keeping an open mind about furthering knowledge, how things sound better before you hear other options?

Or does all that just mean to you that, what you were told about the bible is true even if the bible itself does not back you up. None of the bible quotes have aided you and in fact i believe them to contridict you.



Are you saying you randiomly decided Mary was a whore on your own, again did you pay here for sex? What would make you think that!? You who are thinking it is so offensive to be gay or say signifant people could have been gay, you like to call people whores for no reason? What kind of christian are you? Oh, the regular kind, Thanks tons S.P...



oh, your into deifying jesus and subjugating women, i didn't get that you were a St. Peter styled christian. i am not a christian of any kind but if i were i would definatly be a Jesus inspired one over a Peter inspired one.

All prophets are perfect if all of creation is perfect. Jesus called everyone a prophet when he said, "i do NOTHING that you, yourself can not do."

Jesus didn't diefy himself, why do you?

What?


What are you talking about? Jesus would have forgiven her for anything.


Like I said, I could be wrong. However there is some scripture that implies this. It's not like I just dreamt this idea up with nothing to at least back my thoughts


You being called a whore in high school has nothing to do with this. It's probably not the best to compare you and high school to Jesus and Pharisee.

Snip/ snip, there... Whjy should everyone have to be so fluent in English, the ugliest language of all, At least i speak it, do you speak other languages besides your own? Or are you another average american? arrogant and ignorant?

You understand what i am saying, so just quit changing the subject to jibe my semantics and understand i said that not to offend you but to point out that you are harping on the sexual issues brought up, whores and gays, more than and less observantly than many others here. So it seems to maybe be sexual issues, after all you think that you came up with Mary being a whore on your own, though it was a carefully propagated story for nearly 2,000 years.



Because this is a public forum and you all were five pages in by the time i signed on tonight, my first time in several days. i as many people likely do read the whole thread, when something blows me away, like your assuming so far off of what ai said, i comment. You have been writing for days, but the world is not yours alone and i have signed on here and just read it, it is not days old to me as it is to you. That is why, besides i notiuced later it took quite a while to clear up.



And say what?
Good job at pointing out an obvious theory that has more acruable backing in the bible than your whore comment?



You had no backing to call her a whore, the bible implies much intimacy between jesus and his followers, no such intimicy is implyed with Mary and countless strangers.

There is no shread of scripture to support either but the assertions were made, Jesus may have been gay and Mary WAS a whore. But i supporet a possibility over a statement of psudo fact any day. He implyed Jesus MAY have been gay, but it was you who dreamed he was saying that all christain "soldiers" must then be gay.

And as for this other post...



You didn't, i am. Unless you have paid a woman for sex, you can not assuradly call her a whore and you took no such action with Mary magdalene, so quit spreading B.S.
Thank you.




Simple, hon, if yuou think you know Mary is a whore, you bought her. If you think you purchaserd timwe with a woman dead for 2000 years, you're nuts, what is so hard to understand what i am saying?

You have no right stance or backing to call this historical figure a whore and neither has anyone else.

Exactly.


Then stop there.


Thats why I said its a possibility there, honey.



Yes, I said it could go either way. I'm not arguing that fact. The reason as to why I am arguing is because I already admitted that, and you keep arguing about something that has already been settled. I'll even say it one more time (since you fail to see my point)..

It can mean many different things.


Ok, put down which scriptures would "contridict me."

What the hell are you talking about? Again, I said it was my opinion.


I have more than "no reason".

You're so hypocritical. Now who is assuming things for no reason? "The regular kind?" I have just as much as a reason to thinking she was a prostitute as to you thinking "the regular kind" think the same as I.


What? How would this be "deifying jesus," and subjugating women. Where did I say that all women are whores? Stop putting words in my mouth. You aren't making any sense.


1) Thats just great.
2) I don't care.

And if all creation were perfect why was there a flood? And could all the other prophets perform miracles?


What? How did I do this....

Jesus had no problem with her. He had a more followable outlook than Pharisee, to put it nicely.

Are you, a christian, taking the teachings of Pharisee over Jesus as you stated.

Do you understand now, or still having trouble understanding why a christian should follow christ's opinion over Pharisee?



Exactaly, but you can't? Come on, you didn't even know the woman!

i'd say he did a bit more than forgive her, who's child is the sainted child of portugal?



But the scripture you listed was easily interpreted in many ways other than her being a whore. i am saying all you have to back this up is congecture from societies and faiths that have openly tried to oppress women.




Ok. how about something more appropriate, can't use me of course.

Almost every person who is female and between the ages of8 and 80 have been called a whore unwarrentedly in a variety of circumstances. it is a very common insult and commonly cast out there by jelouse men who have been scorned. i would wager ten bucks that every single female on this site has been called a whore at some time when they were not being paid for sex.

And it was even more common back in "the day" so it is highly possible that Pharisee had a low opinion of this other Royal who could have made a good wife for him had he not been calling her a whore, for a reason other than her actually being a whore.

Sorry to butt in here, but I'd like someone to answer a question for me: What references are you guys using to claim that [a] Jesus was Jewish royalty, and [b] Mary Magdalene was royalty.

Jesus was a carpenters son. Simple.

And I admit I do not know all the non-canonized writings, so if Mary is mentioned there, could you tell me.

Anami, calling someone a whore is an opinion. Don't try to change people's opinions. You'll never win. Amalgamut has his definition of a whore, you have yours. So anyways, I'm just gonna read this topic, as it's getting crazy

1) Because Jesus was from the family line of King David, I guess.

2) I don't even know who this Mary Magdalene person is...

Don't insult me (with your weak comments) and I won't insult you. Make sense?

Now who is being judgemental? I never said everyone has to speak english. But if you are going to insult me (in whatever language) at least spell it correctly. Otherwise you look silly.


Yes, but you need to learn a bit on your spelling if you plan to insult someone.

Yeah, a little. But if I were going to insult someone (in any language) I would make damn sure I spelled it correctly.


I think your comments above pretty much prove that you are both. Otherwise, thank you for your compliment.



1) I would have said nothing about your spelling errors prior to your insult. You brought that upon yourself.
2) I never brough up the issue of gays.


Either way, I don't really care. Whore or not, its not really a big deal. It can just show that Jesus was all forgiving. Matter of fact, him marrying a whore would probably make me understand more.


Yes, and we pretty much settled this issue. Had you read any of the pages, you would have seen this. I don't care if you argue, but you asked me why I kept posting so I asked you the same question.


But you aren't a christian why would you care if I thought she was a whore? In your same mentality you should be pointing your finger at AI as well, but you are not. Therefore you are a hypocrite. Take a number.


Like I said, post away. I don't care. But don't tell me its ironic when I post about something that you are complaining about. I am/was trying to explain myself. Keep in mind, you are the one who brough up the whole "why are you posting thing."

More accurable backing? Ok, care to show me some scripture that helps prove your crazy idea?

I'll admit I didn't have much. But I had some that may imply this. You on the other hand have nothing to show that he was gay.

Tell me, what is your definition of "intimacy?"


Not much, but a little.


I already said it was a possibility. I may have been absolute at first, but I changed my view to maybe. It doesn't really matter now does it? And I still find it funny how you can harp all over me but nobody else. Maybe its because you arent a Christian? Yeah...I think thats it.

Honesly, why do you care? Is it just because you are a woman, and I am an american? Is it because you think all americans are ignorant and arrogant? Is that why?

A woman can still be a prostitute without me personally paying her and having sex with her. If you honestly think that my opinion came from me personally sleeping with her and paying her than you my friend, are nuts.


Yes and what do you have to say about someone calling Jesus gay? Oh wait, I forgot you are a hypocrite.....

Thats because Jesus is all loving and forgiving. He wouldn't care what she did. Any mortal on the other hand would think otherwise.

1) Yes I am a Christian
2) You didn't understand the passage.


I understand that you arent understanding what I understood. Understand?


Where did I say I couldn't forgive her?


Are you from portugal? And what does this have to do with anything?



Yes. I already implied this.

And this doesn't mean that some women are not prostitues. It is the worlds oldest profession. Now, I dont know what gave you the idea that I called every woman a whore. I never implied this, nor did I think this.

Ok, this is just your opinion. Thats cool. You could be right.

Thanks Tainted. But forget his lineage. Joseph was a carpenter. Jesus was a carpenters son.

And Mary magdalene appears first in the gospels in Luke 8:2, where Jesus cast 7 demons out of her. Some believe the "sinful woman" refered to in chapter 7 is Mary Magdalene, which is what Amalgamut is arguing right now, but there is no direct evidence to suggest they are the same woman. They might be, but might not be too.

Mary magdalene then dissappears until after Jesus' death and resurrection when she is one of the women to go and find the empty tomb.

Hope that helps, all the best,

What do you mean exactly?

i was saying even Jesus (the prophet at hand)

Did not agree with the low opinion, as he allowed such intimacy.



Are you not aware you are asking me to prove something doesn't exist by showing it to you?
Read the bible and you will see my point.

That is like you telling me the story of the 3 pigs has a rabbit in it somewhere, and me saying no, and you replying by asking me to quote from the story where there is no rabbit in the story. If you actually read the story of the 3 pigs you will find for yourself that there is no rabbit.




Oh, i'm sorry, i missed where you and ai solved all of the mysteries of interpreting the highly altered book by sorting out that you misunderstood him saying all christians were gay and that for no reason at all mary was a whore, you admit she may not have been, while calling her one. Your right, all settled.


Ok, put down which scriptures would "contridict me."

Thank you for clearing that up BFG. How could anybody say she was descended from royalty let alone married to Jesus, as she's only in a couple verses! Or am I missing something else?

Yeah, I was wondering the same thing.

the rest of mary magdalene's story was banned from the bible

That's what the conspiracists(sp?) want you to believe

no, I read about it in the Nag Hammadi

You might wanna go back a read the scripture again. It says nothing about intimacy. I think you are interpreting her kissing his feet into something else.

I said it was a possibility of her being a prostitute. You say there is no way she could be a prostitute, but yet you see it as a possibility that Jesus was gay.

1) We settled it in terms of us both having an opinion on this matter.
2) Do you see me saying "She was definitely a whore" now? Like I said, I may have thought this absolutly at first, but I now see it as being both ways. You must have trouble reading.

Well, then you obviously don't know what a contradiction is.

It is your opinion that Jesus who lived 2000 years ago was gay?

Tell me what scriptures make you think Jesus is gay, and I will tell you the same thing.

Well, judging by your previous post, you judged the entire american race. So, save your words here, mkay?

1) Where did I say I was perfect?
2) Where did I say everyone else is wrong. Matter of fact, I told someone on this thread that they were correct (so this would make me wrong).

And you know everything to the point you can definably assert that prostitution is "offensive" in it's very nature?

Don't tell me about flaws in my way of thinking when you have already sterotyped Americans and Christians. Refer back to your comments to see what I mean.

Yes.

(no)

Save it. You already said Jesus was gay. Don't tell me what I can and cannot think about Mary Magdelene. And I did give you a suggestion.

Yes, but apparently you don't understand this.

But why cleanse a perfect creation?

Perhaps to a point, but it is true that there are more books or gospels that were left out of the bible, one supposedly written by Mary herself. Basically the point of what is in the bible is almost all anti-women. Can anyone dispute that? So for these men who hate some dislike of women why would they add into the bible that jesus was married and loved a woman. That would in some ways but her above them and they just couldn't have that now could they? Besides making women evil, bad, witches, whores or any of the like made it easier to keep the all boys clubs of religion all boy without having pesky women around to bother them since they were lesser, and they could prove it just read the bible!

Mmm hmm.



I totally disagree. It is the Catholics and their early teachings which were anti-women. The Bible was written in a male dominated culture, so to an extent they are, but the teachings are at times positively feminist. Ephesians 4 and 5 for example lay out relationship guidelines which would have been previously unheard of in such a male dominated society. Additionally Jesus spoke to women as equals and not as inferiors, another cultural absurdity. Some of the Old Testament writings are entirely about women (Ruth, Esther for example). These women are not spineless and weak. There's no "anti-women" sentiments here.



I guess I just did



I think you're getting your early church history and your Biblical facts mixed up a little there, Bacca

All the best,

So the early church wasn't founded on the bible? They didn't take follow the bible alot closer then we do today? Since they did, religion was one of the most important things right? Well those men got from the bible something that they could turn into male superiority....how is that wrong? and please show me how the bible isn't anti-female?

Everything was anti-female until the early 1900's not just the Bible.

Ephesians 5:22-31. I'm not posting what it says because I want to see if you'll read it by yourself

That's what I pointed out, but I expanded it to the whole of Ephesians 4 and 5. They obviously didn't read it before posting because I mentioned it specifically



All the best,

Thanks for pointing that out BFG! I forgot about chapter 4

So what you are saying is looking at your wife as a possession is a good thing?

Check out her very own Gospel.
You'll find this in the "Nag Hamidi Texts" Also known as "The Gnostic Gospels"

As good a read as the better known gospels but far less censored!

Yes, but you don't then KNOW that she is a prostitute.



i wasn't saying Jesus was gay. i was suggesting that someone who would be so offended at the mere suggestion he MIGHT have been gay, should not denounce his (possible) wife and a holy teacher.



Careful, it is not wise to state that you alone know the true intent and meaning of the bible and all other understandings of it are misunderstandings.



How big hearted of you!

It is so sweet of you to forgive this woman who has historical recordings of her as a holy woman, as though you have never done any ill in your life.
She strode for far nobler things than many people today ever think of. And you feel you are god like enough to judge and forgive HER!?



Please do not call me a saint for it often is a psudonym for murderer. This saint however being different as this child was sainted for being the daughter of Jesus. This was believed by the villigers that met her and the area dwellers of today who still worship at the feet of statues in her likeness.

And i mistyped as it was late when i was writing last. It is the child of Prague, not portugal. My apologies for any confusion.



She dried her feet with her hair!
He allowed her to touch his feet with her HAIR!

In the Middle east are you aware of this as their jewel!?

This is intimacy.

i am not talking about things of a sexual nature, which involve other chemestry in the body.

Intimacy is the condition of being intimate...

in·ti·mate1     P   Pronunciation Key  (nt-mt)
adj.
1 Marked by close acquaintance, association, or familiarity.
2 Relating to or indicative of one's deepest nature: intimate prayers.
3 Essential; innermost: the intimate structure of matter.
4 Marked by informality and privacy: an intimate nightclub.
5 Very personal; private: an intimate letter.
6 Of or involved in a sexual relationship.

And This is what i mean.



To be honest, yes i have. i accept that there are exceptions, but for the most part, i like the majority of the people on the planet have a very low opinion of Americans. From the get go of the concept of America, as i am what is now known as a Native American. But we once had better titles that we gave to ourselves.

Surely you can understand my opinion of this as Americans are buying Hummers like it is a fad right now and you could feed all of Somolia for six months for the price of one.

Americans have sit apathetically by and allowed the largest atrocities in modern history, just like they did to wipe out my culture. And that's bad M'kay.
i don't like it M'kay.
Call it a character flaw if you must, but i would be ashamed to state that i thought america was a good thing or that most americans are not lazy selfish... well.. jerks, really.
Just like i would be ashamed if i had a car worth a house, hundred of thousands of dollars to make me look perfect and defy gravity and age, etc. you know the "American Dream"

Crush the world for my comfort?

If i were like the majority of americans, THAT would be my character flaw.

But i digress...



i never said it was. It is the worlds oldest profession, i would have loved to be an old west Madam. (in theory of course) No everyone needs affection and fake is better than none.
Maslovs pyramid has sex so low to the base level, i would be silly to suggest it so unnecessary it wouldn't ever need to be sold.

What i am saying is you have no basis to call this holy teacher annointed by Jesus to be a Ho.
That would be like saying the same of Mother Teresa. Do you not see that that is not ok in most circles?



Because if the cleansing didn't happen it would no longer be perfect. As the cleansing happens it is perfect because that is what is supposed to happen, because it is.

Where'd you get that from? It says for husbands to take care of their wives, love them, and submit to them; the same for wives. It makes them equal.. If God thought they weren't equal, He would've just said for wives to submit to their husbands and such.

22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing[a] her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30for we are members of his body. 31"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."[b]



lets see......husband is head of wife.....make her holy, wash her? love your wife that's all well and good but where does it say husbands need to submit to thier wives?