The Adulterous Woman.

[Magdala]

I am not going to speculate on Satan's motives and schemes.

You probably should if you're going to be a Christian. He's just as real as God is and he's constantly at work trying to lead people away from God. That's his motive and he'll use anything and anyone he can to do so.

So, think about what you read about the Blessed Virgin Mary in Maria's writings. Why would Satan speak about Her in such a way, when he hated Her Son to the point of killing Him, and so how much more would Satan hate His Mother for bringing Him into the world to redeem mankind and defeat him?

And, Satan wants to lead people away from God, and the Blessed Virgin Mary wants to help lead people to God, and thus, wouldn't it be more befitting of Satan to either downplay or deny Who She is, what She's done and does, and the degree of influence that She's had and has, and so on, and get people to believe that, in order to lead them away from God? Because for Satan to speak of the Blessed Virgin Mary in ways that honor Her and draws people to Her Son, and thus closer to God, is the exact opposite effect of what he wants. Do you agree?

And, we agree that Maria Valtorta's writings have a supernatural origin, but you think it's Satan's work not God's, and that he's saying lies about the Blessed Virgin Mary. I take it that you've ruled out the possibility that people's interpretation of certain scriptural verses are wrong, and that what Maria Valtorta was told and shown is actually the Truth? How did you come to that rule out?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

You probably should if you're going to be a Christian. He's just as real as God is and he's constantly at work trying to lead people away from God. That's his motive and he'll use anything and anyone he can to do so.

I am well aware of HIs schemes, being a former Satanist. But I focus on what God calls me to do, it leaves no time to try to figure out what the devil is up to.

And, we agree that Maria Valtorta's writings have a supernatural origin, but you think it's Satan's work not God's, and that he's saying lies about the Blessed Virgin Mary. I take it that you've ruled out the possibility that people's interpretation of certain scriptural verses are wrong, and that what Maria Valtorta was told and shown is actually the Truth? How did you come to that rule out?

By Peter, whom you say was the first Pope, we are forbidden from interpreting Scripture, but to accept and obey it. No church has the right to "interpret" Scripture.

 

[Magdala]

I am well aware of His schemes, being a former Satanist. But I focus on what God calls me to do, it leaves no time to try to figure out what the devil is up to.

There's nothing to figure out. You already know that Satan is constantly at work trying to use anything and anyone he can to lead people away from God. Now, we agree that Maria Valtorta's writings have a supernatural origin, but you think that they're of Satan. In that case, think about how Satan wants to lead people away from God, and the Blessed Virgin Mary wants to help lead people to God, and now think about what you you read about the Blessed Virgin Mary in Maria's writings. Then, ask yourself these questions:

Satan speaking of the Blessed Virgin Mary in ways that honor Her and draws people to Her Son, and thus closer to God, is the exact opposite effect of what satan wants. Yes or no?

Wouldn't it be more befitting of Satan to either downplay or deny Who She is, what She's done and does, and the degree of influence that She's had and has, and so on, and get people to believe that, in order to lead them away from God? Yes or no?

By Peter, whom you say was the first Pope, we are forbidden from interpreting Scripture, but to accept and obey it. No church has the right to "interpret" Scripture

There was the Christian (Catholic) Church founded by Jesus. Then, people started their own Christian denominations, and each differs from the Church Jesus founded. That's why you have so many different interpretations of Scripture now. Heck, a group of Jehovah's Witnesses straight up edited Scripture to their liking! For example, you read certain scriptural verses and interpret them to mean that Joseph and Mary had intercourse and other children, but others say different. Both can't be right can they? Nope. So, how did you rule out the possibility that your interpretation of those verses aren't correct?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

There's nothing to figure out. You already know that Satan is constantly at work trying to use anything and anyone he can to lead people away from God. Now, we agree that Maria Valtorta's writings have a supernatural origin, but you think that they're of Satan. In that case, think about how Satan wants to lead people away from God, and the Blessed Virgin Mary wants to help lead people to God, and now think about what you you read about the Blessed Virgin Mary in Maria's writings. Then, ask yourself these questions:

Satan speaking of the Blessed Virgin Mary in ways that honor Her and draws people to Her Son, and thus closer to God, is the exact opposite effect of what satan wants. Yes or no?

Wouldn't it be more befitting of Satan to either downplay or deny Who She is, what She's done and does, and the degree of influence that She's had and has, and so on, and get people to believe that, in order to lead them away from God? Yes or no?

Well MAria lies about the Mary, the Mother of Jesus.

1. She is not the Mother of God, but the Mother of Jesus humanity.
2. She had sex with Joseph after Jesus was born according to gods Infallible Inspired Word.
She had at least 6 other children- 4 sons and at least 2 daughters according to gods Infallible Inspired Word.
#. She sinned like the rest of humanity as declared in Gods Inspired Infallible Word.

If you believe in all the other Marian apparitions and her sayings- then you and Maria are guilty of Idolatry! These Marian visions demand praying the Rosary! False prayer.

 

[Magdala]

By Peter, whom you say was the first Pope, we are forbidden from interpreting Scripture, but to accept and obey it. No church has the right to "interpret" Scripture

Well MAria lies about the Mary, the Mother of Jesus.

1. She is not the Mother of God, but the Mother of Jesus humanity.
2. She had sex with Joseph after Jesus was born according to gods Infallible Inspired Word.
She had at least 6 other children- 4 sons and at least 2 daughters according to gods Infallible Inspired Word.
#. She sinned like the rest of humanity as declared in Gods Inspired Infallible Word.

The Christian (Catholic) Church was founded by Jesus. The first leaders were the apostles. Then, people started their own Christian denominations, and each differs from the Church Jesus founded. That's why you have so many different interpretations of Scripture now. Heck, a group of Jehovah's Witnesses straight up edited Scripture to their liking! You read certain scriptural verses and interpret them to mean that Joseph and Mary had intercourse and other children, but others say different. Both can't be right. So, how did you rule out the possibility that your interpretation of those verses aren't correct?

Additionally, we agree that Maria Valtorta's writings have a supernatural origin, but you think that they're of Satan because of what Maria was shown and told about the Blessed Virgin Mary, which is about Her life on earth, why She should be honored, and the ways in which She draws people to Her Son, and thus closer to God, which is the exact opposite effect of what Satan wants. Wouldn't it be more befitting of Satan to either downplay or deny Who the Blessed Virgin Mary is, what She's done and does, and the degree of influence that She's had and has, and so on, and get people to believe that, in order to lead them away from God? Yes or no?

 

[JohnDB]

According to Maria Valtorta's account of what took place, the following words Jesus wrote in the dust were the sins of the adulterous woman's accusers as they were speaking to Him:

« Usurer »
« False »
« Irreverent son »
« Fornicator »
« Murderer »
« Desecrator of the Law »
« Thief »
« Libidinous »
« Usurper »
« Unworthy husband and father »
« Blasphemer »
« Rebellious to God »
« Adulterer »

And, after Jesus said, "If there is one of you who has not sinned, let him be the first to throw a stone at her," and while the adulterous woman's accusers started to disperse, Jesus started writing the following:

« Pharisees »
« Vipers »
« Sepulchres of rottenness »
« Liars »
« Traitors »
« Enemies of God »
« Revilers of His Word »

It's a popular theory....based on Jesus's words. "Those innocent among you be the one to cast the first stone"

However....

There are carefully worded laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy that line out in exacting detail how to treat a woman accused of Adultery....including the testi.ony of her husband, the adulterer man, the drink of dust from the Temple grounds mixed with water and etc.

Maybe Jesus was writing those LAWS out on the Dirt....the accusers certainly knew them.

 

[Magdala]

It's a popular theory....based on Jesus's words. "Those innocent among you be the one to cast the first stone"

However....

There are carefully worded laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy that line out in exacting detail how to treat a woman accused of Adultery....including the testi.ony of her husband, the adulterer man, the drink of dust from the Temple grounds mixed with water and etc.

Maybe Jesus was writing those LAWS out on the Dirt....the accusers certainly knew them.

Thank you for sharing, but according to the source I mentioned in post #1, a woman who was shown the scene of the adulterous woman by Jesus, what Jesus wrote were the sins of the adulterous woman's accusers.

 

[JohnDB]

Thank you for sharing, but according to the source I mentioned in post #1, a woman who was shown the scene of the adulterous woman by Jesus, what Jesus wrote were the sins of the adulterous woman's accusers.

I understand where you got your thoughts and beliefs about the subject.

But if the Scribes, Pharisees, and etc were trying to get Jesus to stone this woman as if she was guilty of Adultery without going through the LAW of Moses....then they were guilty doubly so of breaking the Law. (As also laid out in scriptures)

I have no idea about whether the Mary V you are speaking of is inspired by vision or what.

I just know the Law of Moses and what Jesus would of thought about those who were supposed to be the "Teachers of Israel".
Jesus NEVER shied away from condemning sin....far from it. He had a very definite and definable stance on EVERY sin mentioned in scriptures. He didn't play footsie with sin or coddled it or even excused it. He utterly destroyed it at every chance he got.

Make what you will of my thoughts. I'm just sharing in the discussion without trying to disparage anyone. I'm simply making scriptures clear from my perspective.

And if you wish to negate the thoughts I've expressed here then you need to support your original perspective with some sort of scriptures or logic to explain. Relying upon a person that you believe is insufficient....it's a logical fallacy.

 

[JohnDB]

Other thoughts on this passage....

Is that Jerome had an accident when assembling the scriptures. He lost this section and later it was erroneously inserted into John. However, internal evidence suggests that it truly belongs in Mark.

Tradition has made it hold this place especially since the invention of the printing press. The earliest manuscripts available do not have this section of scripture whatsoever....

Bur if we look at the reason why Jerome assembled and translated the scriptures it's understandable why this section of Mark was lost and later became inserted into John....
Today we still are doing Jerome's work with things like Dead Sea Scrolls and other manuscripts.

 

[Magdala]

I just know the Law of Moses and what Jesus would of thought about those who were supposed to be the "Teachers of Israel".
Jesus NEVER shied away from condemning sin....far from it. He had a very definite and definable stance on EVERY sin mentioned in scriptures. He didn't play footsie with sin or coddled it or even excused it. He utterly destroyed it at every chance he got.

Jesus didn't "play footsie with, coddle, or excuse sin", but rather He only said that those who were without sin should throw the stones. And, no one struck the adulterous woman, because no one was without sin. So, He confirmed the Law that inflicts lapidation on adulterers, but He also saved the woman because not one lapidator could be found.

And, if Jesus "never shied away from condemning sin...far from it" as you say, then He would've stoned her, and it would've been just, because she really was guilty, but it wouldn't have been mercy. Did you want Jesus to stone the woman to death?

And, Jesus was not foolish in forgiving. He did not say what He said to other souls whom He had forgiven because they were fully repentant. He gave the adulterous woman time and possibility to arrive at repentance and holiness, if she wished to reach them.

And if you wish to negate the thoughts I've expressed here then you need to support your original perspective with some sort of scriptures or logic to explain. Relying upon a person that you believe is insufficient....it's a logical fallacy.

If you think relying on a person that you believe is a logical fallacy, then you should stop believing the words of those mentioned in Scripture. Regarding the scene of the adulterous woman, none of the Evangelists mention what Jesus wrote on the ground. Maria Valtorta was shown the same scene by Jesus, and she described what He wrote, and it's supported by His following command, which is mentioned in Scripture: "He who is without sin among you, let him throw the first stone at her.” Furthermore, I can provide proof that she was one of Jesus's true spokespersons. See the chapters on proofs in A Summa and Encyclopedia to Maria Valtorta's Extraordinary Work. So, as I said, what Jesus wrote in the dust were the sins of the adulterous woman's accusers.

 

[JohnDB]

Jesus didn't "play footsie with, coddle, or excuse sin", but rather He only said that those who were without sin should throw the stones. And, no one struck the adulterous woman, because no one was without sin. So, He confirmed the Law that inflicts lapidation on adulterers, but He also saved the woman because not one lapidator could be found.

And, if Jesus "never shied away from condemning sin...far from it" as you say, then He would've stoned her, and it would've been just, because she really was guilty, but it wouldn't have been mercy. Did you want Jesus to stone the woman to death?

And, Jesus was not foolish in forgiving. He did not say what He said to other souls whom He had forgiven because they were fully repentant. He gave the adulterous woman time and possibility to arrive at repentance and holiness, if she wished to reach them.



If you think relying on a person that you believe is a logical fallacy, then you should stop believing the words of those mentioned in Scripture. Regarding the scene of the adulterous woman, none of the Evangelists mention what Jesus wrote on the ground. Maria Valtorta was shown the same scene by Jesus, and she described what He wrote, and it's supported by His following command, which is mentioned in Scripture: "He who is without sin among you, let him throw the first stone at her.” Furthermore, I can provide proof that she was one of Jesus's true spokespersons. See the chapters on proofs in A Summa and Encyclopedia to Maria Valtorta's Extraordinary Work. So, as I said, what Jesus wrote in the dust were the sins of the adulterous woman's accusers.

Women in the Ancient Near East were one half step above property. Kinda sad.
They were bought and sold as daughters by their fathers.
They also were sometimes "put away" by their husband's so they could afford another wife. Not legally divorced where the husband would give the wife the dowry...just kicked out of the house. Meanwhile since polygamy wasn't wrong their husbands would have a new wife.

Unemployed and without hope of a job to support themselves these "put away" wives would often seek a new husband to support them. Move to another city and claim their father and mother has died....then get married again. This was where the real abuse started. (No dowry) This is when literal wife swapping began.
Such was the plight of the "adulterous" woman in question.

She hadn't sinned....and if she had gotten married again Jesus clearly said her sin of Adultery and lying would be held against her former husband.

Such was also the story of the "woman at the well" with 5 husbands and currently just shacked up but Jesus used her as the kickoff for his Samaritan campaign and preaching to the Samaritans.

So Jesus didn't stone the adulterous woman or believe that she needed to be stoned. (Like the woman at the well) And Jesus practiced what He preached....He was most definitely without sin.

And....
When sitting in judgment of others....you had to be above reproach....because most of the matters of Law were capital offenses. Most required the death penalty. You can't have a judge guilty of Adultery presiding over Adultery cases. Or shortcutting the Law by not having her drink the water with dust and ashes first....or by not getting testimony of both her husband and her Adultery lover.

Especially when the Law is clear that when Lawbreaking and bringing false charges were to have the same punishment applied to those accusing as they wished upon the accused. Meaning they needed to be stoned to death instead of her by breaking the Laws of formal charges resulting in capital punishment.

 

[Magdala]

So Jesus didn't [...] believe that she needed to be stoned.

I just know the Law of Moses and what Jesus would of thought about those who were supposed to be the "Teachers of Israel".
Jesus NEVER shied away from condemning sin....far from it. He had a very definite and definable stance on EVERY sin mentioned in scriptures. He didn't play footsie with sin or coddled it or even excused it. He utterly destroyed it at every chance he got.

The Pharisees and scribes brought the woman before Jesus saying, " “Teacher, we found this woman in adultery, in the very act. Now in our law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. What then do you say about her?” Jesus didn't "play footsie with, coddle, or excuse sin", but rather He only said that those who were without sin should throw the stones. And, no one struck the adulterous woman, because no one was without sin. So, He confirmed the Law that inflicts lapidation on adulterers, but He also saved the woman because not one lapidator could be found. Jesus could've stoned her, and it would've been just, because she really was guilty as He confirmed, but it wouldn't have been mercy. By saying "Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more", He gave the adulterous woman time and possibility to arrive at repentance and holiness, if she wished to reach them.

And if you wish to negate the thoughts I've expressed here then you need to support your original perspective with some sort of scriptures or logic to explain. Relying upon a person that you believe is insufficient....it's a logical fallacy.

If you think relying on a person that you believe is a logical fallacy, then you should stop believing the words of those mentioned in Scripture. Regarding the scene of the adulterous woman, none of the Evangelists mention what Jesus wrote on the ground. Maria Valtorta was shown the same scene by Jesus, and she described what He wrote, and it's supported by His following command, which is mentioned in Scripture: "He who is without sin among you, let him throw the first stone at her.” Furthermore, I can provide proof that she was one of Jesus's true spokespersons. See the chapters on proofs in A Summa and Encyclopedia to Maria Valtorta's Extraordinary Work. So, as I said, what Jesus wrote in the dust were the sins of the adulterous woman's accusers.

 

[JohnDB]

The Pharisees and scribes brought the woman before Jesus saying, " “Teacher, we found this woman in adultery, in the very act. Now in our law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. What then do you say about her?” Jesus didn't "play footsie with, coddle, or excuse sin", but rather He only said that those who were without sin should throw the stones. And, no one struck the adulterous woman, because no one was without sin. So, He confirmed the Law that inflicts lapidation on adulterers, but He also saved the woman because not one lapidator could be found. Jesus could've stoned her, and it would've been just, because she really was guilty as He confirmed, but it wouldn't have been mercy. By saying "Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more", He gave the adulterous woman time and possibility to arrive at repentance and holiness, if she wished to reach them.



If you think relying on a person that you believe is a logical fallacy, then you should stop believing the words of those mentioned in Scripture. Regarding the scene of the adulterous woman, none of the Evangelists mention what Jesus wrote on the ground. Maria Valtorta was shown the same scene by Jesus, and she described what He wrote, and it's supported by His following command, which is mentioned in Scripture: "He who is without sin among you, let him throw the first stone at her.” Furthermore, I can provide proof that she was one of Jesus's true spokespersons. See the chapters on proofs in A Summa and Encyclopedia to Maria Valtorta's Extraordinary Work. So, as I said, what Jesus wrote in the dust were the sins of the adulterous woman's accusers.

Well,
I believe scriptures because God wrote them. Scriptures are a miracle all in themselves without any assistance from anyone. They have been tested relentlessly throughout the ages and withstood...still flawless today.
Maria? Not so much..

Anything and anyone else is of course going to be scrutinized the same way. And where Maria has a point of view with the micro viewpoint of situational based upon doalogue it does not align with the macro viewpoint of the entirety of scriptures.

Jesus's words (as I have explained) do align with a macro viewpoint. It also aligns with writing norms and customs as "obvious and known" information is not repeated to explain.

Which brings us to the summation and type of arguments each of us are making.

You keep defending this person's vision. (Dreams in scriptures are granted to only the barely believing in scriptures) and I'm defending the whole of scriptures.
This should be a clue to those determining who has the more solid arguments.

I will concede the point that Jesus had the ability to know the hearts of men on an individual basis to an extent. (As related later in this chapter of John which I believe belongs in Mark) But...to me, this story relates more symbolicly to the many protestant denominations or even this "Christian sect of Judaism"....that Jesus accepts and doesn't condemn and more condemns those that created the situation of those believers being forced to become like the "adulterous" woman.

 

[Magdala]

Well, I believe scriptures because God wrote them.

Humans did the writing, but their writings have a supernatural origin, and it's the same with Maria Valtorta. Therefore, since you say it's a logical fallacy for me to believe the writings of Maria Valtorta, then you should stop believing the writings of the ancient prophets, or the four Evangelists, and so on. If you want to avoid displaying a double standard that is.

Jesus's words (as I have explained) do align with a macro viewpoint. It also aligns with writing norms and customs as "obvious and known" information is not repeated to explain.

However, what you believe Jesus wrote on the ground isn't so, but rather it was the sins of the adulterous woman's accusers:

« Usurer »
« False »
« Irreverent son »
« Fornicator »
« Murderer »
« Desecrator of the Law »
« Thief »
« Libidinous »
« Usurper »
« Unworthy husband and father »
« Blasphemer »
« Rebellious to God »
« Adulterer »

and then He said, "If there is one of you who has not sinned, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."

He had done this because there was a lack of charity and sincerity in the accusers. Not because they lied in accusing. The woman was really guilty. But they were insincere being scandalised at something they had committed thousands of times and that only greater cunning and better luck had allowed to remain concealed. The woman, at her first sin, had not been so cunning and lucky. But none of the accusers were free from sin. One ought to be free from sin in order to condemn with justice.

Jesus was not unaware of the hearts of those Pharisees and scribes, or of the hearts of those people who had joined them in insulting the guilty woman. Sinners against God and their neighbour, they had sinned against faith, against their parents, against their neighbour and above all they had committed many sins against their wives. If by means of a miracle He had ordered their blood to write their sins on their foreheads, among the many charges that of "adulterers" by deed or by desire would have reigned supreme. Jesus has said: "It is what comes from the heart that contaminates man". And with the exception of His heart, there was no one among the judges whose heart was pure. They lacked sincerity and charity. Not even their being like her in their hunger for lust induced them to be charitable.

It was Jesus Who was charitable to the dejected woman. He, the Only One, Who should have been disgusted with her. But remember this: "The kinder one is, the more compassionate one is to culprits". One is not lenient to the fault itself. No. But one is indulgent to weak people who have not resisted temptation.

Jesus could've stoned her, and it would've been just, because she really was guilty as He confirmed, but it wouldn't have been mercy. By saying "Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more", He gave the adulterous woman time and possibility to arrive at repentance and holiness, if she wished to reach them.

No matter how guilty a man is, he is to be treated with respect and charity. You must not rejoice at his annihilation, you must not be pitiless, not even with curious glances. Have mercy on those who fall.

You keep defending this person's vision.

I wholeheartedly defend Maria Valtorta, because Jesus actually showed her the scene of the adulterous woman, among other scenes from His life on earth. See the chapters on proofs in A Summa and Encyclopedia to Maria Valtorta's Extraordinary Work that are in support of her writings having a supernatural origin.

 

[JohnDB]

Humans did the writing, but their writings have a supernatural origin, and it's the same with Maria Valtorta. Therefore, since you say it's a logical fallacy for me to believe the writings of Maria Valtorta, then you should stop believing the writings of the ancient prophets, or the four Evangelists, and so on. If you want to avoid displaying a double standard that is.



However, what you believe Jesus wrote on the ground isn't so, but rather it was the sins of the adulterous woman's accusers:

« Usurer »
« False »
« Irreverent son »
« Fornicator »
« Murderer »
« Desecrator of the Law »
« Thief »
« Libidinous »
« Usurper »
« Unworthy husband and father »
« Blasphemer »
« Rebellious to God »
« Adulterer »

and then He said, "If there is one of you who has not sinned, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."

He had done this because there was a lack of charity and sincerity in the accusers. Not because they lied in accusing. The woman was really guilty. But they were insincere being scandalised at something they had committed thousands of times and that only greater cunning and better luck had allowed to remain concealed. The woman, at her first sin, had not been so cunning and lucky. But none of the accusers were free from sin. One ought to be free from sin in order to condemn with justice.

Jesus was not unaware of the hearts of those Pharisees and scribes, or of the hearts of those people who had joined them in insulting the guilty woman. Sinners against God and their neighbour, they had sinned against faith, against their parents, against their neighbour and above all they had committed many sins against their wives. If by means of a miracle He had ordered their blood to write their sins on their foreheads, among the many charges that of "adulterers" by deed or by desire would have reigned supreme. Jesus has said: "It is what comes from the heart that contaminates man". And with the exception of His heart, there was no one among the judges whose heart was pure. They lacked sincerity and charity. Not even their being like her in their hunger for lust induced them to be charitable.

It was Jesus Who was charitable to the dejected woman. He, the Only One, Who should have been disgusted with her. But remember this: "The kinder one is, the more compassionate one is to culprits". One is not lenient to the fault itself. No. But one is indulgent to weak people who have not resisted temptation.

Jesus could've stoned her, and it would've been just, because she really was guilty as He confirmed, but it wouldn't have been mercy. By saying "Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more", He gave the adulterous woman time and possibility to arrive at repentance and holiness, if she wished to reach them.

No matter how guilty a man is, he is to be treated with respect and charity. You must not rejoice at his annihilation, you must not be pitiless, not even with curious glances. Have mercy on those who fall.



I wholeheartedly defend Maria Valtorta, because Jesus actually showed her the scene of the adulterous woman, among other scenes from His life on earth. See the chapters on proofs in A Summa and Encyclopedia to Maria Valtorta's Extraordinary Work that are in support of her writings having a supernatural origin.

Maria Valtorta's writings are not scripture....never been considered scripture and are not published with scriptures.

Not even Jerome considered her writings scriptures.

Sorry....

 

[Magdala]

Maria Valtorta's writings are not scripture....never been considered scripture and are not published with scriptures.

Not even Jerome considered her writings scriptures.

Sorry....

Jerome couldn't have considered Maria Valtorta's writings as anything because he died over a thousand years before Maria Valtorta (1847-1961). And, Maria Valtorta didn't consider the dictations she received and visions she described as a fifth Gospel, and Jesus even even dictated to her that her writings aren't a fifth Gospel, and that there are four Gospels, and four Gospels there will remain. See the chapters on proofs in A Summa and Encyclopedia to Maria Valtorta's Extraordinary Work that are in support of her writings having a supernatural origin.

 

[JohnDB]

Jesus even even dictated to her that her writings aren't a fifth Gospel

Meaning I will believe Jesus and not her.
Every
Single
Time.

And the logic arguments I've put forward still make more sense than her visions....

No matter how much lipstick you put on it.

You haven't given anything substantive yet that supports her or your perspective that hasnt been thoroughly disproven. You did make a somewhat honest try to support half of your argument. I'll give you that.
But the rest of your time has been in defense of a person and her vision.
And I'm one to NEVER care about the source person. Only the substance of what is said tested against scriptures. If God can use a donkey....then the person is not ever relevant....but the substance of the message is ALWAYS relevant. But first it must be tested. And in this situation...it was tested, weighed, and measured. It came up lacking.
Severely deficient.

Not sure if it's poison....but it is definitely incorrect.

Just As an FYI...
One of my special interests is in teaching macro vx micro hermeneutics. Which includes painting a complete picture involving anthropology, history, language arts, geography, topography, zoology, agricultural and flora sciences....iOW

Good luck trying to gain disciples...
I'm not a believer in "your girl".

 

[Magdala]

And the logic arguments I've put forward still make more sense than her visions....

But, they don't.

You haven't given anything substantive yet that supports her or your perspective that hasnt been thoroughly disproven.

I gave you the link to A Summa and Encyclopedia to Maria Valtorta's Extraordinary Work, and there are chapters on proofs that are in support of Maria Valtorta's writings having a supernatural origin, and you haven't addressed any of them, and thus nothing has been disproven by you.

 

[JohnDB]

But, they don't.



I gave you the link to A Summa and Encyclopedia to Maria Valtorta's Extraordinary Work, and there are chapters on proofs that are in support of Maria Valtorta's writings having a supernatural origin, and you haven't addressed any of them, and thus nothing has been disproven by you.

They do not align with scriptures....

Supernatural origin is still suspect....all because they do not align with scriptures.

If they had aligned....I would be all in. But since they don't....
I really don't care anything about this person claiming to be a prophetess or any story she has to tell. I'm not changing my life because of words she has said. Not donating money or even a reference link to her website.

However,
the words of Jesus as I exposited definitely have many corresponding scriptures from many that we trust. Like Paul, Moses, Micah, Malachi, Samuel, Joshua, and David. And that has the potential of changing lives....which is why it was written (Which has had a high cost both in innocent blood and money)

 

[Magdala]

Supernatural origin is still suspect....all because they do not align with scriptures.

No, it doesn't align with what you'd rather believe, and what you'd rather believe and the Truth are two different things.