Posted on 12/01/2003 12:56:57 PM PST by nickcarraway
Edited on 12/01/2003 1:02:11 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
And if He did, I bet He still had trouble keeping it running.
lol. Wasn't speaking of information when I said it was getting deep... .
True. Why do you think he walked around so much?
The recent discovery of the Magdalene scrolls in Eastern Egypt are just one instance.
One cannot deny the biblical passage relating Mary's washing of the feet of Jesus, and the oiling and drying of his feet with her own hair.
This was the act of a man's wife, and upset the female members of Jesus family to no end, yet Jesus rebuked them, and said it was her right.
Likewise, one cannot deny that Mary Magdalene was at the foot of the cross with the rest of Jesus family to recieve his body.
History buffs may confirm or deny, but I recall from somewhere, that Roman Law refused the presence of any but "immeadiate family" at the foot of the cross.
Thus, Mary Magdalene could only be there if she was represented at least, as Jesus wife, something that would be publicly known by many at the time.
These points were made to me more than 40 years ago, and I have had no problem with them in all that time.
I consider this discussion more one of historical accuracy than of Political Correctness or some Feminist Agenda, although I would not preclude feminism's wanting to find some sort of "validation" for their movement in that history.
I am sure the feminists are willing to use facts when they fall to their advantage.
Indeed. If they really viewed the Bible as some archaic, man-made book of stories, they'd shrug and go on about their business without worrying about it. Instead they try to re-interpret or just plain re-write it, because it galls them that anyone else believes it.
One example, the 'historical Jesus' project where self-described 'scholars' go through the New Testament accounts and identify which parts they think Jesus really said/did, and which parts He didn't (using no evidence except their own preferences)... if the Bible isn't reliable, and Jesus wasn't divine, then why do they CARE what some guy really said 2,000 years ago?
In fact, I don't care what most scholars might have said yesterday.
How do we know this was Mary Magdalene?
It's interesting to see all of this speculation come out through The DaVinci Code, an amusing if implausible novel. Little of the supposed revelations about Christ and Christianity were very surprising, however.
Years ago, I read the Gospel of Thomas, Piagel's on the Gnostic Gospels, The Lost Books of the Bible and the Forgotten Books of Eden and acquainted myself with much of the lore of Western Occultism, from tales of the Grail to the Templars and Masons, the Rosecrucians, Illuminati on through the British and American occultists of the 19th and 20th centuries, which included such figures as Yeats and Conan Doyle, and many others.
There's a whole world of lore out there, some of it ancient, some more recent. What does seem to be true is that the present Canon was decided at the Council of Nicea and that there was widespread disagreement on whether certain books ought to be in or not. Some of what was rejected has been lost, other books are around, but not widely available. What also seems to be true is that there is a Hebrew tradition, the Kabala, in which the Divine is understood to have both masculine and feminine natures -- often represented by the famous pillars, Joachim (spelt variously) and Boaz.
The connection of both the Jews and Christianity with Egypt is also a curious point. Anyone who is even remotely familiar with the stories of Isis and Osiris knows there are paralells with the Mary and Jesus.
None of this, in my mind, takes anything away from the miracle of Jesus' birth, life, death and resurection, but I think many Christians, who immediately denounce any inquiry into these matters make themselves look foolish and ignorant.
Part of the present controversy is whether there was more than one "Mary" of Magdala, or if all instances /references apply to one woman.
We do have a few writings and documents that refer to her as a disciple, and if they are "historically accurate", then she played a far greater role in the birth of christianity than the present bible portrays.
How about Paul's comment in Gal. 3:28 -- "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." This verse would seem to cut racism, classism, slavery, and sexism all off at the knees.
Can you document any of this?
It is not specified what she did to anger the people, and one must remember, middle eastern customs such as "honor killings" pre-date Islam by hundreds if not thousands of years.
Remember that in such cultures, even a victim of rape is considered sinful and subject to stoning.
Much like Ruth, I see her as a strong minded woman, unlikely to meekly submit to the abuse of any man.
It was only to someone like Jesus that she could completely sacrifice her very soul and will.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.