Mary Magdalene...jezebel or prophet??

[freudianlip]

I,m sitting here sipping my Earl Grey Tea...( one sugar please.. for future reference) and centuries of Irish Catholic guilt...can't go in the church after a baby..don't take the Eucharist during menses, only men can be priests...etc.. are neatly weighting the chip on my drooping shoulder.Even though I am not Catholic my mum is...Oh My God...is she.. When I try to come to grips with the notion that if Miss Magdelane (RIP) had not been suppressed by Pope whoever...whenever AD...where would we be now??? What actual empirical evidence is there to validate the hypothesis that there was a significant female in the Bible and that it has affected modernity. Would anyone care to contribute with a little erudite information or at least tell me if I am issuing forth drivel???:(

[Bikewer]

In the various gospels that didn't make the canonical cut, there are a variety of references to the lady, and one (at least) devoted primarily to her.

It's fairly obvious that there were a number of female followers of JC, and that they contributed materially to his activities. According to some of these traditions, Mary was an apostle, and highly-ranked at that.

Of course, there is essentially no reliability for any of these traditions, but they did exist, only being left out of the emerging "canon" much later.

[ReligionStudent]

In the various gospels that didn't make the canonical cut, there are a variety of references to the lady, and one (at least) devoted primarily to her.

It's fairly obvious that there were a number of female followers of JC, and that they contributed materially to his activities. According to some of these traditions, Mary was an apostle, and highly-ranked at that.

Of course, there is essentially no reliability for any of these traditions, but they did exist, only being left out of the emerging "canon" much later.

Unfortunatly, the non-canonical gospels also offer illustrations to the contrary, such as the Gospel of Thomas, which has a couple very sexist statements about the ability of women to follow Christ (purportedly made by Christ).

[freudianlip]

If Mary was an apostle why then has she been portrayed by the RC Church body as a sinner and depicted as such in many religious works of art a contextual and historical reflection of the era and mindset they were generated from?:confused:

[Davidjayjordan]

Jesus had women folowers and the main one was Mary Magdalene, his wife or one of his wifes.

Twelve Women Apostles of Jesus





"Of all the daring things which Jesus did, the most amazing
was his sudden announcement on the evening of January 16:
"On the morrow we will set apart ten women for the ministering
work of the kingdom." At the beginning of the two weeks'
period during which the apostles and the evangelists were to
be absent from Bethsaida on their furlough, Jesus requested
David to summon his parents back to their home and to dispatch messengers calling to Bethsaida ten devout women who had served in the administration of the former encampment and the tented infirmary. These women had all listened to the instruction given the young evangelists, but it had never occurred to either themselves or their teachers that Jesus would dare to commission women to teach the gospel of the kingdom and minister to the sick.

These ten women selected and commissioned by Jesus were: Susanna, the daughter of the former chazan of the Nazareth synagogue; Joanna, the wife of Chuza, the steward of Herod Antipas; Elizabeth, the daughter of a wealthy Jew of Tiberias and Sepphoris; Martha, the elder sister of Andrew and Peter; Rachel, the sister-in-law of Jude, the Master's brother in the flesh; Nasanta, the daughter of Elman, the Syrian physician; Milcha, a cousin of the Apostle Thomas; Ruth, the eldest daughter of Matthew Levi; Celta, the daughter of a Roman centurion; and Agaman, a widow of Damascus. Subsequently, Jesus added two other women to this group -- Mary Magdalene and Rebecca, the daughter of Joseph of Arimathea.

Jesus authorized these women to effect their own organization and directed Judas to provide funds for their equipment and for pack animals. The ten elected Susanna as their chief and Joanna as their treasurer. From this time on they furnished their own funds; never again did they draw upon Judas for support. It was most astounding in that day, when women were not even allowed on the main floor of the synagogue (being confined to the women's gallery), to behold them being recognized as authorized teachers of the new gospel of the kingdom. The charge which Jesus gave these ten women as he set them apart for gospel teaching and ministry was the emancipation proclamation which set free all women and for all time; no more was man to look upon woman as his spiritual inferior. This was a decided shock to even the twelve apostles.

Notwithstanding they had many times heard the Master say that "in the kingdom of heaven there is neither rich nor poor, free nor bond, male nor female, all are equally the sons and daughters of God," they were literally stunned when he proposed formally to commission these ten women as religious teachers and even to permit their traveling about with them. The whole country was stirred up by this proceeding, the enemies of Jesus making great capital out of this move, but everywhere the women believers in the good news stood stanchly behind their chosen sisters and voiced no uncertain approval of this tardy acknowledgment of woman's place in religious work. And this liberation of women, giving them due recognition, was practiced by the apostles immediately after the Master's departure, albeit they fell back to the olden customs in subsequent generations. Throughout the early days of the Christian church women teachers and ministers were called deaconesses and were accorded general recognition. But Paul, despite the fact that he conceded all this in theory, never really incorporated it into his own attitude and personally found it difficult to carry out in practice."

***********************************

The above was taken from an esoteric book, but seeing a few parts like this one, ring TRUE, I have reposted it. because we do know that te church Patriarchy tried to hide the freedom and equality that Jesus taught and lived concerning women. (SEE Equality not Patriarchy (http://www.geocities.com/davidjayjordan/EqualityNotPatriarchy.html)). For as He said to all, "For if ye (male and female) continue in my WORD, then are ye my disciples indeed and the truth shall set you FREE." (John 8; 31-32)

This excerpt is easy to understand ... and agrees totally with the principles of the Lord and so in my opinion. it is true History and is needed to be told to our women in the Lord to give them faith that they were loved by the Lord just like the men, and that they are needed for His Service just like the men, and they are totally equal to the men in their service. Our women do NOT have to take a subservient stance to men, or their worldly husbands, if they have the spiritual qualities needed for whatever the Lord wants them to do and are called by the Lord, their spiritual Bridegroom. All positions of responsibility have to be available to them if they are qualified, and by the Grace of God, they shall be because the Lord is not a sexist...... and they shall dream dreams and prophesy in the Latter Days (SEE Women Prophetesses in the End Time (http://www.geocities.com/davidjayjordan/WomenProphetessesintheEnd-Time.html))

For we absolutely need them to carry on where their foremothers of the past left off. For notice from the listing above that Mary Magdalene, the 11th woman ordained by the Lord, (who probably won the 12th woman apostle, Rebecca, the daughter of Joseph of Arimathia) went together with Joseph and established the first missionary outpost in Glastonbury England. And it was thru them that much of the world was evangelized for the Lord via England's conversion and many of the Ten Missing Tribes of Israel (http://www.geocities.com/davidjayjordan/TenMissingTribesKumriKeltsAngloSaxons.html) -- that had fled in there after their fleeing from the Babylonian advance in Jeremiah's time. (SEE Church History, King Arthur and the Templars (http://www.geocities.com/davidjayjordan/HolygrailKingArthur.html)) (http://www.geocities.com/davidjayjordan/HolygrailKingArthur.html). So did we need our women... YES, and do we need them in the Latter Days YES !!! For there is neither male nor female in Christ Jesus. And so we better believe it. God bless the first 12 women apostles of the Lord !!!

In My Opinion
David Jay Jordan

Besides the Holy Spirit is female. Its only the patriarchial church system that wants to control wioemn that has demoted women to secondary status.

[Davidjayjordan]

Unfortunatly, the non-canonical gospels also offer illustrations to the contrary, such as the Gospel of Thomas, which has a couple very sexist statements about the ability of women to follow Christ (purportedly made by Christ).

But religious student, before you stated that scholars only used your particular type Bible and now you are talking about Thomas as a possible source of truth. Are you cherry picking as I was accused of because I say there is more than the patriachial canon.

Interesting ........ diffetrent answer of yours R.S.

[Bikewer]

The portrayal of MM as a "prostitute" did not occur until the middle ages, as I understand it, when an increasingly patriarchichal church wished to downgrade her role.

In the dozens of gospels that are known to have existed, no doubt one can find pretty much what one likes.....

[freudianlip]

Yes Bikewer, I would have to agree with you. I do think that most if not all religious texts are indeed subject to interpretation which is defined historically and contextually....:hypnotize But how many gospels have been located and where are they now.... If in the vaults of Rome then I feel we are still under the wings of the Dark Ages..Should they be treated as historical texts and thrust into the academic world for analysis?

How does the Bible,Qur'an, Torah and others fare under scientific scrutiny...Is it a case of DeBunked all round...

[ReligionStudent]

But religious student, before you stated that scholars only used your particular type Bible and now you are talking about Thomas as a possible source of truth. Are you cherry picking as I was accused of because I say there is more than the patriachial canon.

Interesting ........ diffetrent answer of yours R.S.

I simply stated a preference language before, or if one cannot read anything other than English RSV or NRSV. I don't believe any version is word of god or anyhting, those are just the most accurate translations. You also have to look at things such as Qumran to study the development. I never said Gospel of Thomas was source of truth, I stated that it was possible evidence that was contradictory to other points of possible evidence, making a final conclusion difficult.

As for MM as Jesus's wife, prove it. Jesus would have been expected to be married in his time period, and the gospels would likely have noted it. I am not saying their is not debate about MM's role, but that there is no evidence Jesus was married. The absence of it is more likely the reflection of an actual absence than some conspiracy.

You have also continualy faile to prove your little ax to grind of the holy spirit having been invisioned as feminine.

[slingblade]

This appears to be a good site to get more info on the Gospel of Mary Magdalene and other apocrypha.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gospelmary.html

[freudianlip]

Was there actually marriage back in JC's time?? In Brehon law or at least in celtic druidic Ireland all you had to do was leap over a broom. And a woman could divorce her fella' if he wasn't satisfactory in bed....or in the head
Speaking of which...this DavidJay guy doesn't sound very scientifically grounded...but can anyone out there come up with some evidence to support me...

[RandFan]

Besides the Holy Spirit is female. What does this mean? Assuming that the Holy Spirit (a being lacking reproductive organs) has femanine qualities then why couldn't the holy spirit be gay?

[Macoy]

Suspended again. ho hum. what did he do now?

[RandFan]

Suspended again. ho hum. what did he do now?

[/URL]

[URL="http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2540310#post2540310"]Davidjayjordan has been suspended (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2540310#post2540310)

[slingblade]

Was there actually marriage back in JC's time?? In Brehon law or at least in celtic druidic Ireland all you had to do was leap over a broom. And a woman could divorce her fella' if he wasn't satisfactory in bed....or in the head
Speaking of which...this DavidJay guy doesn't sound very scientifically grounded...but can anyone out there come up with some evidence to support me...


This source (http://www.myjewishlearning.com/lifecycle/Marriage/AboutMarriage/EvolutionAncient.htm) says yes. Depending, of course, on what you mean by "actually marriage."

[bruto]

Was there actually marriage back in JC's time?? In Brehon law or at least in celtic druidic Ireland all you had to do was leap over a broom. And a woman could divorce her fella' if he wasn't satisfactory in bed....or in the head
Speaking of which...this DavidJay guy doesn't sound very scientifically grounded...but can anyone out there come up with some evidence to support me...

Where there's divorce, doesn't it follow that there must have been marriage? I think there's plenty of evidence in the bible that the Jews of Jesus's time and before had a pretty firmly developed tradition of marriage, similar to what we would call marriage. So did the Romans and Greeks well before Jesus. Roman civil marriage was quite well codified (and rather complicated).

As to Davidjayjordan's scientific credibility, he certainly does not evince any scientific wisdom, and his ideas on biology, sexuality and evolution are bizarre, to say the least. He claims to have majored in some scientific area in college, though I don't recall any specifics on his area of concentration, or what kind of college, and I seem to recall he also had a story about how he rejected evolution from the start, winning his case in biology despite going against the official position. This is entirely his account of it, for what it's worth, and what it's worth is up to you to judge from context.

[CapelDodger]

Was there actually marriage back in JC's time?? In Brehon law or at least in celtic druidic Ireland all you had to do was leap over a broom.

What is marriage but some form of public affirmation before family, friends and officialdom? It has usually followed pregnancy, with all its implications, and is hard to deny later.

And a woman could divorce her fella' if he wasn't satisfactory in bed....or in the head

The betrothal period generally weeds out the impotent or otherwise incompetent.

Speaking of which...this DavidJay guy doesn't sound very scientifically grounded...but can anyone out there come up with some evidence to support me...

Do not engage; DJJ is a tar-baby AWOL from his own authored threads. Your instincts are correct in this case.

[ReligionStudent]

What is marriage but some form of public affirmation before family, friends and officialdom? It has usually followed pregnancy, with all its implications, and is hard to deny later.



The betrothal period generally weeds out the impotent or otherwise incompetent.



Do not engage; DJJ is a tar-baby AWOL from his own authored threads. Your instincts are correct in this case.

DJJ is gone for like seven days now.

[blutoski]

I,m sitting here sipping my Earl Grey Tea...( one sugar please.. for future reference) and centuries of Irish Catholic guilt...can't go in the church after a baby..don't take the Eucharist during menses, only men can be priests...etc.. are neatly weighting the chip on my drooping shoulder.Even though I am not Catholic my mum is...Oh My God...is she.. When I try to come to grips with the notion that if Miss Magdelane (RIP) had not been suppressed by Pope whoever...whenever AD...where would we be now??? What actual empirical evidence is there to validate the hypothesis that there was a significant female in the Bible and that it has affected modernity. Would anyone care to contribute with a little erudite information or at least tell me if I am issuing forth drivel???:(

The early Christians were heterodox, so it's hard to describe 'them' uniformly. It appears that for many generations in Rome and other major Roman cities (Ravenna, Alexandria, and Carthage come to mind) women held an equal status with men in the church. The earliest manuscripts describe some women as Apostles.

The slow elimination of these high-profile women from the Gospels appears to have been a gradual process, and is probably an example of incompetence rather than malevolence. By late antiquity, the Roman civilization had imploded and the sexual egalitarianism of this society was replaced with early Gothic/Vandalic/Visigothic feudalism and its male-dominated culture. Monks who grew up in this environment reading about women as equals probably just thought it was a mistake in some earlier copy and 'corrected' it.

Another cause is the accidental inclusion of a monk's editorializing in subsequent copies. An example is the passage in 1 Corinthians 14, which is now traced to the accidental inclusion of one monk's opinion, as he must have written it in the margins in his own personal copy that was later used for scribing. Subsequent monks mistook it for part of the original Gospel, and squeezed it in. Some after verse 33; others after verse 40.


Back to my earlier statement about women apostles, this was referring mostly to Junia and her husband Andronicus. It is clear in the early texts that Junia was "foremost among the apostles" (Paul, Romans 16 v7)

This was accepted for generations until the original understanding was lost, and then the mysoginist damage control set in. It followed this course:

1. Alter the wording a bit, so the 'apostles' part doesn't refer to Junia and Andronichus. From:
Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives and fellow prisoners, who are formost among the apostles."
to:
Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives. And also greet my fellow prisoners who are foremost among the apostles."

2. Some scribes just assumed that the name was incorrectly spelled, and copied it into their versions as 'Junias'. Problem: how could two men be married?

3. Assume the passage was really about Andronicus - foremost among the apostles - and his subservient wife Junia. Rewrite accordingly.

There are other examples that show the cultural bias led to textual alterations. Paul's companion Silas in Acts 17 converted "...a large number of prominent women." Monks later changed this to "...a large number of wives of prominent men."

[freudianlip]

What is marriage but some form of public affirmation before family, friends and officialdom? It has usually followed pregnancy, with all its implications, and is hard to deny later.

Freudianlip says;
A contract for division of personal wealth, a mutual arrangement for clan expansion....(or more exceptionally in my case the production of a half goat half nun..less of the Immaculate more of the conception..as practice makes purrrfect)



The betrothal period generally weeds out the impotent or otherwise incompetent.

Freudianlip says'
Here in ireland it is very difficult to obtain a divorce and first must judicially be granted a legal separation then after several years both parties may petition for divorce which has in some cases not been granted until months of legal wrangling and Houdini like blame games have been completed.. Its much better to live together having leapt or stepped over the broom.



Do not engage; DJJ is a tar-baby AWOL from his own authored threads. Your instincts are correct in this case.
Thank you for for your wise advice...I guess I got him on this thread as part of the luck of the Irish syndrome...:blush:

[slingblade]

he certainly does not evince....

Thank you. I had started to think I was the only person who'd ever heard this word, much less used it. Bless you. Let me know how many people ask you if you really meant "evidence," will you? :p

[freudianlip]

The early Christians were heterodox, so it's hard to describe 'them' uniformly. It appears that for many generations in Rome and other major Roman cities (Ravenna, Alexandria, and Carthage come to mind) women held an equal status with men in the church. The earliest manuscripts describe some women as Apostles.

The slow elimination of these high-profile women from the Gospels appears to have been a gradual process, and is probably an example of incompetence rather than malevolence. By late antiquity, the Roman civilization had imploded and the sexual egalitarianism of this society was replaced with early Gothic/Vandalic/Visigothic feudalism and its male-dominated culture. Monks who grew up in this environment reading about women as equals probably just thought it was a mistake in some earlier copy and 'corrected' it.

Another cause is the accidental inclusion of a monk's editorializing in subsequent copies. An example is the passage in 1 Corinthians 14, which is now traced to the accidental inclusion of one monk's opinion, as he must have written it in the margins in his own personal copy that was later used for scribing. Subsequent monks mistook it for part of the original Gospel, and squeezed it in. Some after verse 33; others after verse 40.


Back to my earlier statement about women apostles, this was referring mostly to Junia and her husband Andronicus. It is clear in the early texts that Junia was "foremost among the apostles" (Paul, Romans 16 v7)

This was accepted for generations until the original understanding was lost, and then the mysoginist damage control set in. It followed this course:

1. Alter the wording a bit, so the 'apostles' part doesn't refer to Junia and Andronichus. From:

to:


2. Some scribes just assumed that the name was incorrectly spelled, and copied it into their versions as 'Junias'. Problem: how could two men be married?

3. Assume the passage was really about Andronicus - foremost among the apostles - and his subservient wife Junia. Rewrite accordingly.

There are other examples that show the cultural bias led to textual alterations. Paul's companion Silas in Acts 17 converted "...a large number of prominent women." Monks later changed this to "...a large number of wives of prominent men."
Hence the 'standardised bible' has been consistently altered and updated since its commencement. Consequently, can the inference be generated that the bible since its original inception (inc.Pope Damascus version;latin vulgate) has been altered and rewritten (inc. of doodles) to become not so much a doctrine able to trace its aetiology in JC himself, but a fabrication, a decentraised myth, centuries of urban legend? Where is the so called science behind the religion?

[strathmeyer]

DJJ is gone for like seven days now.

Send him an e mail; he still has no problems chatting about nothing and being generally insulting.

[blutoski]

Hence the 'standardised bible' has been consistently altered and updated since its commencement. Consequently, can the inference be generated that the bible since its original inception (inc.Pope Damascus version;latin vulgate) has been altered and rewritten (inc. of doodles) to become not so much a doctrine able to trace its aetiology in JC himself, but a fabrication, a decentraised myth, centuries of urban legend?

These alterations predated the bible. They are visible in different versions of the Gospels. Eventually, some of these versions were adopted into Canon. Sometimes two or more versions were spliced together.

Once Canon was achieved at Nicene, most copies have been reasonably accurate reproductions. The major quibbling since Nicne is about translations from language to language, or from antique to contemporary versions of the same language (eg: translation to an "ebonics" version).



Where is the so called science behind the religion?

Even though I'm not religious, I warn against arguing by strawperson. Religion claims to be revealed, not scientific. The apologists have their usual bulletproof defenses. eg: "Satan put the other versions into circulation to confuse us, but thanks to divine guidance, we were able to select the true ones for Canon."

Problem solved, religion-style.

[triadboy]

What does this mean? Assuming that the Holy Spirit (a being lacking reproductive organs) has femanine qualities then why couldn't the holy spirit be gay?

Wasn't the original belief (in myth) - Father, Mother and Son? Mother got replaced by the Holy Spirit in Xianity

[freudianlip]

These alterations predated the bible. They are visible in different versions of the Gospels. Eventually, some of these versions were adopted into Canon. Sometimes two or more versions were spliced together.

Once Canon was achieved at Nicene, most copies have been reasonably accurate reproductions. The major quibbling since Nicne is about translations from language to language, or from antique to contemporary versions of the same language (eg: translation to an "ebonics" version).





Even though I'm not religious, I warn against arguing by strawperson. Religion claims to be revealed, not scientific. The apologists have their usual bulletproof defenses. eg: "Satan put the other versions into circulation to confuse us, but thanks to divine guidance, we were able to select the true ones for Canon."

Problem solved, religion-style.

Divinely described !! Thus logic,reason,true discourse,sanity,empirical evidence, are casually dismissed!:wackycute:

[slingblade]

Wasn't the original belief (in myth) - Father, Mother and Son? Mother got replaced by the Holy Spirit in Xianity

Depends on what, when, and where you mean by "original" and "in myth."

According to a casual discussion I had in Cultural Anthropology, mother-worship may be the oldest belief system. But we had a heated discussion over how just how stupid people would have to be, and for how long, to think childbirth was magic, and not connect the sex act to conception.

We didn't come to many evidence-based conclusions, as I recall. ;)

At any rate, I remember we talked about how hard it was to know who a father was, but everyone knows who the mother is....and so even if women were never really worshiped for magically reproducing, patrimony would be one response to this uncertainty that would have to stifle the female as holy or revered.

"Holy? You're not holy! Anybody can knock you up, and for all I know, anybody has! Well, I've worked too hard for what I have to leave it to your lover's kids, so we'll just have to see about making sure you keep your dirty, dirty legs shut for everybody but me!"

Kind of thing.

I'm trying to find some papers or other evidence on mother-worship, but so far, no luck aside from a billion Wiccan "Goddess" sites. Sigh.

[CapelDodger]

Once Canon was achieved at Nicene ...

There was no Canon established at Nicaea. (A friendly warning to cover that flank against nit-pickers :) .) Decisions were certainly made that de-legitamised whole swathes of Christian theology, but the Canon was established later.

[Bikewer]

Ehrman refers to the decisions made at Nicea as "proto-orthodoxy". As I recall, they were still fighting over which writings should be included up to the 15th century or even beyond.

[ChristineR]

Ehrman refers to the decisions made at Nicea as "proto-orthodoxy". As I recall, they were still fighting over which writings should be included up to the 15th century or even beyond.

Let's face it--they're still fighting.

[freudianlip]

How about introducing a compendium of all known,recorded biblical versions and the reader gets to pick and produce their own personal one which can be downloaded to their i-pod.;)
And further...
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
- Steven Weinberg , quoted in The New York Times, April 20, 1999.

[cgordon]

What evidence have we that Sweet Mary ever actually existed? About as much as we have of her dearly beloved Josh ...

[freudianlip]

What evidence have we that Sweet Mary ever actually existed? About as much as we have of her dearly beloved Josh ...

Well, how do you know she was sweet then???:p

[triadboy]

What evidence have we that Sweet Mary ever actually existed?

We have her toast.

[ChristineR]

We have her toast.

WRONG MARY! You're soooo confused!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/7329462e6c181e039.jpg

The one with the cloth over her head is the one that shows up on toast, the hot chick is the one we're discussing here.

[triadboy]

WRONG MARY! You're soooo confused!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/7329462e6c181e039.jpg

The one with the cloth over her head is the one that shows up on toast, the hot chick is the one we're discussing here.


I love the hot toast Mary!

[Mangoose]

There was no Canon established at Nicaea. (A friendly warning to cover that flank against nit-pickers .) Decisions were certainly made that de-legitamised whole swathes of Christian theology, but the Canon was established later.

I can't post links yet, but google "The Council of Nicaea (Nicea) and the Bible" to get an article by Robert Pearse that shows how the notion that Constantine settled the Bible canon in 325 AD is a modern myth.

[blutoski]

I can't post links yet, but google "The Council of Nicaea (Nicea) and the Bible" to get an article by Robert Pearse that shows how the notion that Constantine settled the Bible canon in 325 AD is a modern myth.

Sure, but I was intentionally simplifying. The post I was responding to was labouring under the misapprehension that these first/second century documents were "the standardized bible". These Gospels represent an era that predated any such concept by generations.

That's why I highlighted the popular counterargument to which each sect adheres: "Our standardized bible is accurate."

[freudianlip]

the council made a ruling on the date of Easter and condemned the views of Arius. After the council, Constantine ordered the burning of the works of Arius and his sympathisers, and the exile of himself and his supporters, and followed this later in his reign by action against Christian schismatics and gnostic heretics.

From these there appears almost no evidence that the council of Nicaea made any pronouncements on which books go in the Bible, with the ambivalent exception of Jerome, or about the destruction of heretical writings, or reincarnation. However it did condemn Arius and his teachings, and the Emperor Constantine did take the usual Late Roman steps to ensure conformity afterwards. However these were not put into effect; and Arianism made an almost immediate comeback. Even Arius was recalled by Constantine. Here is the very informative link suggested by mangoose http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html
I assume that the New Testement is compiled of manuscripts, hence its credibility is surely in the empirical domain of considering the number of copies that have survived and making comparisons between them and subsequently comparing those to the Bible used currently to investigate corresponding articles.

[ReligionStudent]

I would like to make a slight derailing here. There was definatly marriage. Read Lamentations, which was written c. 550 BCE.

[CapelDodger]

Read Lamentations ...

There aren't many laughs in it, I'll warrant.

Lamentations was written during the Exile, which was essentially exile of the property-owning classes. Formal, contractual marriage will generally exist at that social level, where inheritance and dynastic ambition are important. At the vulgar level there's usually a more flexible customary system involving fathers, brothers, pitchforks and/or shotguns.

[freudianlip]

Would it be correct then that the Church evolved the concept of marriage from civil contract to alleged 'sacred union'?

[Marc L]

If Mary was an apostle why then has she been portrayed by the RC Church body as a sinner and depicted as such in many religious works of art a contextual and historical reflection of the era and mindset they were generated from?:confused:

According to the RC Church, (and Christianity in general) everyone's a sinner, including the apostles. Hell, his best friend denied flat out he knew Jesus, and one of his buddies turned him over to the authorities.

It's been awhile since I read it, but ISTR that the Pope who claimed MM was a prostitute didn't do so in order to downgrade her importance, but rather to show how willing God was to forgive sin (ie, if God would even forgive a prostitute, surely he'd forgive someone like <fitb>).

Marc

[CapelDodger]

According to the RC Church, (and Christianity in general) everyone's a sinner, including the apostles. Hell, his best friend denied flat out he knew Jesus, and one of his buddies turned him over to the authorities.

It's been awhile since I read it, but ISTR that the Pope who claimed MM was a prostitute didn't do so in order to downgrade her importance, but rather to show how willing God was to forgive sin (ie, if God would even forgive a prostitute, surely he'd forgive someone like <fitb>).

Marc

"We have a select clientele."

"What's the criterion?"

"Five bucks up front."

[CapelDodger]

Would it be correct then that the Church evolved the concept of marriage from civil contract to alleged 'sacred union'?

That's a succint summation.

A less succint one would include such phrases as "muscled in on", "laid claim to", and "hi-jacked".

In England and Wales priestly presence (and fees) became a legal requirement for marriage in the 1540's, IIRC, and that was entirely down to the centralising policies of the state in that period. The very early modern, aka the Paper Age.

[ReligionStudent]

There aren't many laughs in it, I'll warrant.

Lamentations was written during the Exile, which was essentially exile of the property-owning classes. Formal, contractual marriage will generally exist at that social level, where inheritance and dynastic ambition are important. At the vulgar level there's usually a more flexible customary system involving fathers, brothers, pitchforks and/or shotguns.


It was written during the Exile, but not in Exile. It is generally expected to have been written in Jerusalem because of its focus on Jerusalem and its people, where as the theologies/writings doen in exile looked to those in exile as the true "good figs". I am not arguing there was not such practices as making sure your dead brother had kids by helping his wife out after he died or such, just that there was a definition of marriage pre-christ.

[bruto]

I was going to post this one in the "Church Signs" thread, but it occurred to me that it might fit better here!

6670

[freudianlip]

Bruto!!

Ah...nooooooo...... its 9:30 and I missed all the action...lol

[CapelDodger]

It was written during the Exile, but not in Exile. It is generally expected to have been written in Jerusalem because of its focus on Jerusalem and its people ...

They may have been bemoaning how desolate Jreusalem must be in their absence :) . More seriously, if no more relevant, it may have been written by later exiles, those who had seen the Temple destroyed and Jerusalem laid waste before being hustled off.

... where as the theologies/writings doen in exile looked to those in exile as the true "good figs".

The early exiles had a pretty comfortable decade to massage their religion to fit the case, and of course there were plenty of professional priests among them perfectly suited to the task. They only heard about the destruction, and by then they'd already shed much of the emotional and theological significance of place. They had become more sophisticated than that, doncha know :) .

I am not arguing there was not such practices as making sure your dead brother had kids by helping his wife out after he died or such, just that there was a definition of marriage pre-christ.

I reckon marriage comes with a property-owning society, so it does indeed go way back. Holy estate, my arse. Real estate's the thing.

[ReligionStudent]

They may have been bemoaning how desolate Jreusalem must be in their absence :) . More seriously, if no more relevant, it may have been written by later exiles, those who had seen the Temple destroyed and Jerusalem laid waste before being hustled off.


From back when I took a Lamentations class last semester, it seems that the theology fits better on those in Jerusalem, as it laments their suffering and does not have the theology of blame evident in many later writings.

[freudianlip]

With regard to Mary Magdelane

Further attestation of Mary of Magdala and her role among some early Christians might be referred by the apocryphal Gospel of Mary Magdalene. which survives in two 3rd century Greek fragments and a longer 5th century translation into Coptic. Typically in the Gospel the testimony of a woman first needed to be defended. As these manuscripts were first discovered and dissemnated between 1938 and 1983, and in the 3rd century there are Patristic references to the Gospel of Mary.
It would appear such writings reveal the extent to which the gospel was trivialised and reduced to insignificance ecclesiastical patriarchy.

According to fragmentary text, the disciples ask questions of the risen Savior (a designation that dates the original no earlier than the 2nd century) and are answered.

Then they grieve, saying, "How shall we go to the Gentiles and preach the Gospel of the Kingdom of the Son of Man? If even he was not spared, how shall we be spared?" And Mary Magdalene bids them take heart: "Let us rather praise his greatness, for he prepared us and made us into men." She then delivers - at Peter's request - a vision of the Savior she has had, and reports her discourse with him, which shows Gnostic influences.

[CapelDodger]

With regard to Mary Magdelane

According to fragmentary text, the disciples ask questions of the risen Savior (a designation that dates the original no earlier than the 2nd century) and are answered.

So he's right there.

Then they grieve, saying, "How shall we go to the Gentiles and preach the Gospel of the Kingdom of the Son of Man? If even he was not spared, how shall we be spared?"

"He"? Hello? Standing right here, guys ...

And Mary Magdalene bids them take heart: "Let us rather praise his greatness, for he prepared us and made us into men." She then delivers - at Peter's request - a vision of the Savior she has had, and reports her discourse with him, which shows Gnostic influences.

And again, standing right here.

There are some narrative kinks that need knocking out, I think.

[freudianlip]

So he's right there.



"He"? Hello? Standing right here, guys ...



And again, standing right here.

There are some narrative kinks that need knocking out, I think.

LMAO

So you are the narrative kink savior....... Cmon...were you wedded to mary magdalene.............I won't tell a soul...likely because i don't know any...lol:p

[CapelDodger]

From back when I took a Lamentations class last semester, it seems that the theology fits better on those in Jerusalem, as it laments their suffering and does not have the theology of blame evident in many later writings.

I still like my take on it. I'm not nailing my flag to a mast, you understand, but I'm not convinced by those arguments. What's the audience? Not those left in Jerusalem, they don't need to be told of their sufferings and can get together and lament orally. Is it not more likely to be the early exiles, comfortably established in Babylon and rather dismissive of Jerusalem's plight? The exiles weren't a homogenous group by any means, nor were they a world away from Palestine, so any literary work produced at that time has to be seen from that context.

If Lamentations was written by late exiles in an effort to galvanise the exile community, it would not have included the blame theme. The blame theme was more likely to come from the early exiles, who were not responsible for the Temple's destruction. Their submission to Babylon avoided the destruction. It was Zedekiah's defiance that led to it, and the authors of Lamentations were damned by association.

[CapelDodger]

So you are the narrative kink savior.....

No, a saviour fixes things, I can just spot things that need fixing. In easy cases, and this was one. I learnt long ago that fixing things is not my forte.

For instance, my fix for this narrative would involve Jesus ending the Q&A session with "My work here is done", swinging into the saddle of a magical winged horse and flying off to heaven. How formulaic is that?

Then Thomas gets into "Yeah, right, easy to say when you've got a magic horse", and the other guys get into "Yeah, where's my magic horse? or failing that, Ferrari?", and then Mary Magdalene comes in with this, like, kick-ass message thing about what it all means, not a dry eye in the house, fade to credits ...

As you can see, I'm better suited to criticism than creation :) .

[freudianlip]

No, a saviour fixes things, I can just spot things that need fixing. In easy cases, and this was one. I learnt long ago that fixing things is not my forte.

For instance, my fix for this narrative would involve Jesus ending the Q&A session with "My work here is done", swinging into the saddle of a magical winged horse and flying off to heaven. How formulaic is that?

Then Thomas gets into "Yeah, right, easy to say when you've got a magic horse", and the other guys get into "Yeah, where's my magic horse? or failing that, Ferrari?", and then Mary Magdalene comes in with this, like, kick-ass message thing about what it all means, not a dry eye in the house, fade to credits ...

As you can see, I'm better suited to criticism than creation :) .

Remember 'skeptic saviour' its a source which has been historically and culturally located, embellished through the centuries and where the hell would you get petrol for the the ferrari? Though I did hear of a battery made by Parthians, I think that are known as the Baghdad Batteries, so maybe it was a grape juice powered ferrari that badly needed the introduction of turbo boost? Thus the need for so many apostles, I wouldn't fancy pushing a ferrari around on my own.:p

[freudianlip]

I still like my take on it. I'm not nailing my flag to a mast, you understand, but I'm not convinced by those arguments. What's the audience? Not those left in Jerusalem, they don't need to be told of their sufferings and can get together and lament orally. Is it not more likely to be the early exiles, comfortably established in Babylon and rather dismissive of Jerusalem's plight? The exiles weren't a homogenous group by any means, nor were they a world away from Palestine, so any literary work produced at that time has to be seen from that context.

If Lamentations was written by late exiles in an effort to galvanise the exile community, it would not have included the blame theme. The blame theme was more likely to come from the early exiles, who were not responsible for the Temple's destruction. Their submission to Babylon avoided the destruction. It was Zedekiah's defiance that led to it, and the authors of Lamentations were damned by association.

Rather like the British version in the 1970-80's of Irish history...inclusive of the
educational curriculum employed of the Irish Famine. History is recorded by the victors and includes a culturally situated blame modus operandi.

[CapelDodger]

History is recorded by the victors and includes a culturally situated blame modus operandi.

Victors concentrate on the credit they're due; if blame is mentioned it's applied to the loser. Losers concentrate on blame. And it's generally somebody else that's to blame.

[freudianlip]

Victors concentrate on the credit they're due; if blame is mentioned it's applied to the loser. Losers concentrate on blame. And it's generally somebody else that's to blame.

The time and place of the composition of the book appear to be a guesstemite. Scholars that I have researched propose that Ch. ii. and iv. may have been written a decade after the destruction of Jerusalem; i. and v., conceivably near the conclusion of the Exile; and iii. seems to be of postliminary derivation. Debate from what i can gather does appear to intimate endorse Babylon as the progenitor of the book.

Culturally located;
"Gottwald argues that Lamentations stresses the unique nature of the fall of Jerusalem and Israel's sins in order to convince its audience that the destruction must have been the will of God"

[Malachi151]

I,m sitting here sipping my Earl Grey Tea...( one sugar please.. for future reference) and centuries of Irish Catholic guilt...can't go in the church after a baby..don't take the Eucharist during menses, only men can be priests...etc.. are neatly weighting the chip on my drooping shoulder.Even though I am not Catholic my mum is...Oh My God...is she.. When I try to come to grips with the notion that if Miss Magdelane (RIP) had not been suppressed by Pope whoever...whenever AD...where would we be now??? What actual empirical evidence is there to validate the hypothesis that there was a significant female in the Bible and that it has affected modernity. Would anyone care to contribute with a little erudite information or at least tell me if I am issuing forth drivel???:(

A fictional character that never existed, just like Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and most of the so-called 12 disciples (except Peter, James, and John).

[freudianlip]

A fictional character that never existed, just like Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and most of the so-called 12 disciples (except Peter, James, and John).

Please could you expound your perspective a little?

[freudianlip]

I have been hurt in a car accident and wll have to leave this thread for a few days......I will be back so please continue

[CapelDodger]

I have been hurt in a car accident and wll have to leave this thread for a few days......I will be back so please continue
Sorry to hear that; get well soon.

[freudianlip]

Please could you expound your perspective a little?


Prove it......:h1: