Mysteries of Mary Magdalene
Mary Magdalene is a key witness to the most important event in Christianity - the Resurrection of Jesus. But we know almost nothing about her. The early church brands her as a whore. Movie says she's the wife of Jesus and a mother of his child.
But beyond the gospels lays another secret text. So controversial, it's been banned for centuries. A lost gospel that may reveal the real Mary Magdalene. 2,000 years after her death, Mary Magdalene's name is everywhere. But she remains one of history's most mysterious woman. To some she's a prostitute, to others she's the true holy grail.
In the Bible's New Testament she plays a starring role in the foundation of Christianity. The Gospels give very few details about her, only that she comes from Galilee, and follows Jesus, and once was possessed by demons.
Discover how and why the early Christian church was able to reinvent one of the most mysterious women in history.
Relationship with Christ and the true meaning of the scriptures is important. Forget religion, think Christ, Holy Spirit and God. Be mindful we know Christ was.
You know it really amazes me how some people are so ignorant because they are simply uneducated.ALSO,that most who have such an opinion,without fact ,wisdom,or knowledge of our fathers words,can't grasp the concept,that its not just words written but an awakening deep in the soul. You don't even have to understand everything because you can feel his arms wrapped around you with a warmth and love that makes you weep. Except JESUS AS YOUR SAVIOR AND YOU WILL COME TO THIS UNDERSTANDING AND ENLIGHTENMENT LIKE NEVER BEFORE!
well.....The story of a hooker that sat on a wet rock after an orgy and the b*stard child god wont even claim.....
Religion is a scam for money from hard working people that got suckered into a old fabricated story book for kids on how to be good and obey the laws of the land....that is the bible/10 commandments...... penal codes and laws
Jesus' bride is the church...not Mary Magdalene...we take Jesus life, death, burial, resurrection and accent to Heaven by FAITH...not by any special knowledge...that may be why many early manuscripts of Mark STOP at 16:8...Mary was there and saw the empty tomb...there is no additional information added...that is where our journey of FAITH begins....
I have to disagree with your perception of what role mary magdalene played in and around the time of jesus`s life death and resurrection. As a gnostic and someone who has read many other testaments and gospels, which so far 48 of them have been translated, we have very few in the bible alone to understand the deeper picture. You seem so certain that a woman could play any importance with jesus, maybe you think that women had no role with the disciples, but rather more it was women who were most devout toward jesus,then the men. If you wish to dismiss the fact that women and mary herself are inept within christianity, you have a very closed and igorant mind. The fact that women were below men so far back you seem to hold on to that archaic belief, as the bible shows us.. no script has been written by a female due to that archaic stance, after all womens rights were born in the last century and counted as equal to men, then of course when the bible was created women had no role. If you take some timeout and read the gospel of Thomas, also known as doubting thomas, you might open ur very blinkered and closed belief.???
The Bible is very clear that women played a big role in early Christianity...my view is that Mary was not a whore...but she was also NOT married to Jesus...she was one of those who followed Christ on this earth...why else would she have come to His tomb...Just because I do not believe that Mary was Jesus' wife DOES NOT mean that women did not play an important role in the early church ...my beliefs are fine...it's your interpretation of them that's a little off base...
Mary Magdalene has always been a very mysterious figure in history. From reading the bible, I've found very little about her besides the fact that she was one of the women to witness Jesus's resurrection and that Jesus performed an exorcism on her. I watched this documentary admittedly because a lot of my classmates watched it, but I did find the topic of Mary Magdalene very intriguing.
After talking about her early life and how she came to meet Jesus, it slowly goes a bit off topic and starts to talk about things that I think are a bit trivial. It talks about the Romans and their involvement in Judaea, and talks about many things about Mary Magdalene which are not very interesting, as well as many tangents which have very little to do with Mary herself.
In short, this documentary is a bit too long for the information that it gives. It raises many interesting and highly controversial topics (such as how she was the wife of Jesus, and bore his child), which was pretty nice to watch, but other than that there were many other things that I would deem a bit unnecessary for the documentary. It was worth watching, but the producers should have made the length appropriate for the (good) information that it had.
In other words this documentary works like the yeast of the Pharisee. Suddenly the mention of the name Mary of Magdalene sprouted a huge story from a few details until it has completely obscured and overshadowed the message of the Gospels.
If this is his style then maybe the lepers or the tax collectors, or the many sinners that the Pharisee treated as outcasts, ought to be given the limelight too,
Jesus healed many sick people whose sins he forgave. The essence of the Gospels is to bring Good News to the weary, the lost and and persecuted. Isn't that what the world want to rid itself of?
Before watching this Documentary, I knew nothing about Mary
Magdalene. I didn't know who she was and I didn't know what her role in History
was. This documentary looks at the mysteries surrounding of Mary of Magdalene,
who was believed to be a faithful follower of Jesus Christ. She was present at
Jesus’ crucifixion, stood by him and stayed until Jesus took his last breath.
She went to the tomb to anoint Jesus and witnessed the resurrection of Jesus
Christ. Some believed that Mary Magdalene was close to Jesus, even had an
intimate relationship with Jesus while some believed that she was a sinner and
a prostitute who begged for forgiveness from Jesus. At one point, Mary was
reinvented in literature and art as Jesus’ wife and mother of Jesus’ child.
Very little is known about Mary Magdalene only that she was
from Galilee. At one point, the Gospel of Mary Magdalene showed her as a
prominent figure, a disciple and a teacher who knew much about Christ and the
Jesus movement. However, the New Testament had eliminated her because her story
did not fit well into any part of the Gospels. Gospels of Mark, Luke, John and
Matthew in the New Testament focused on male disciples and downplayed Mary’s
role in Jesus’ life. The Gospel of Luke even portrayed Mary was possessed by
seven demons possibly to cast doubt on her character. Nonetheless, Gospel of
Mark and John did suggest that Mary Magdalene was the sole witness to the
resurrection of Jesus Christ – she was the first person to deliver the
resurrection to the disciples.
I thought the documentary sounded pretty cool, and from reading a bit of Dan Brown’s book I wanted to know more about Mary Magdalene which is why I chose this documentary. I have always wanted to learn more about Mary, which is why I had pretty high hopes for this documentary and expected to learn much more than I actually did. I though the research behind the movie was extensive, and it gave out a lot of facts about the life of Mary Magdalene, but wasn’t really relevant in some parts of the movie.
The first 10 minutes or 1st section of the movie was quite interesting and gave me basic information of Mary Magdalene’s life, and how it was a controversy that she was recognized as Jesus’s wife. But as the documentary progresses, it started mentioning topics about fishing and visiting caves. Although this was related to Mary Magdalene, i though that it was a little but unnecessary.
Overall, I think the movie is pretty mixed, the beginning was pretty interesting and I learnt more about Mary Magdalene, but for almost three quarters of the movie it was mentioning things that weren't really necessary when it comes to narrating the life of Mary Magdalene. I probably wouldn’t want to watch this again and if I were to rate it out of ten I would give this movie a three.
Mary Magdalene to me had always been a woman referred to occasionally a church. I did know that she was the first person to have seen Jesus after the resurrection, but hardly anything else. Then, I read The DaVinci Code by Dan Brown. He described this other Mary, a highly controversial Mary, a Mary that I had never heard of. The DaVinci Code described Mary as Jesus’s wife, an idea that I had never heard of. Although I initially dismissed it as a figment of Brown’s imagination, I realized later on that it was actually a really interesting thought, I wanted to learn more about the story, and what the experts thought about it, so I found this documentary. I had high expectations for it, and hoped to learn more about this mysterious woman. Yet, it seems as if my expectations were too high.
The first 15 minutes of the movie were quite interesting, and provided some insight into Mary’s life, and her connection to Jesus and his twelve disciples. However, after that, the documentary goes on a tangent, describing the influence of the Roman Empire during the time period, and the Jewish revolts. Then, the documentary goes back on track, and veers off on another tangent a few minutes later. This pattern continues throughout the documentary, and I repeatedly found myself thinking, “What does this have to do with Mary Magdalene again?”
Overall, I did learn some things from this documentary. The segment on the agnostic gospels was really interesting, and it provided some background to the Mary I had read in The DaVinci Code. The documentary itself actually talked about the book itself, describing why Dan Brown's account had no proof. However, the extra fluff thrown in outweighed the information. I felt the producers had a 45-minute limit, but not enough information about Mary to actually fill the 45 minutes; As a result, they resorted to adding information that was somewhat related to her. If this had been shorter, I think that it would have been more enjoyable.
Mary Magdalene to me had always been a woman referred to occasionally a church. I did know that she was the first person to have seen Jesus after the
resurrection, but hardly anything else. Then, I read The DaVinci Code by Dan Brown. He described this other Mary, a highly controversial Mary, a Mary that I had never heard of. The DaVinci Code described Mary as Jesus’s wife, an idea that I had never heard of. Although I initially dismissed it as a figment of Brown’s imagination, I realized later on that it was actually a really interesting thought, I wanted to learn more about the story, and what the experts thought about it, so I found this documentary. I had high expectations for it, and hoped to learn more about this mysterious woman. Yet, it seems as if my expectations were too high.
The first 15 minutes of the movie were quite interesting, and provided some insight into Mary’s life, and her
connection to Jesus and his twelve disciples. However, after that, the documentary goes on a tangent, describing the influence of the Roman Empire during the time period, and the Jewish revolts. Then, the documentary goes back on track, and veers off on another tangent a few minutes later. This pattern continues throughout the documentary, and I repeatedly found myself thinking, “What does this have to do with Mary Magdalene again?”
Overall, I did learn some things from this
documentary. The segment on the agnostic gospels was really interesting, and it provided some background to the Mary I had read in The DaVinci Code. The documentary itself actually talked about the book itself, describing why Dan Brown's account had no proof. However, the extra fluff thrown in outweighed the information. I felt the producers had a 45-minute limit, but not enough information about Mary to actually fill the 45 minutes; As a result, they resorted to adding information that was somewhat related to her. If this had been shorter, I think that it would have been more enjoyable.
Before watching this documentary, I was hoping to learn about Mary Magdalene, her significance in the Bible and her relationship with Jesus. I knew her basic background but was intrigued by the mystery that surrounded her. I hoped that this documentary would lift my questions.
However, it seemed that the documentary knew no more about Mary Magdalene than I did. It spouted a few known facts about her life, and filled up the rest of the forty minutes with information about that time period, jumping from her life, to mud caves, to fishing boats and then concluding weakly that Mary Magdalene might have fished in one of these boats or lived one of the caves. Aside from basic facts, the documentary was mostly a compilation of feeble assumptions. It seemed that there was so little to say about the actual subject, the filmmakers were attempting to make wild parallels to other subjects that didn’t relate.
To be fair, I learned that there is very little known about Mary Magdalene, far too little to make a proper documentary. I admire the filmmakers in gathering up all the known information about her, but they wasted time trying to fill up space with far fetched connections.
Overall, I didn’t learn very much about Mary Magdalene from this documentary, although it provided a lot of information about the time period.
In choosing this documentary, I was hoping to learn more about Mary Magdalene's role in the Bible and the biblical story. When I was young, I remember hearing about her in Sunday School and wondering why she was only mentioned once or twice when she most evidently had a huge role in the resurrection of Jesus, but is only mentioned once or twice (and not always in the most positive view either).
However, this documentary was far from my expectations. I expected deep analysis into Mary Magdalene's life and the reasons why she doesn't play a significant role in the Christian world (positively, I mean). To be fair, there were a few important details here and there about the basic timeline of her life. But most of these facts were ones that I knew myself by just listening in class or at Sunday School. The movie is extremely hard to follow because it jumps from one random fact to another, and explains more about the time period than about her
life. It talks about mud caves and riverboats when these connections are not useful to the context of the story.
Although I did not enjoy the documentary, I must say that credit where credit is due. I could tell that the directors and the producers of the movie did attempt to gather as many facts as possible about Mary Magdalene, but failed to because of the lack of information there is about her. In the documentary, it even stated that a lot of the conclusions drawn about the woman in regards to the
scriptures we have now have a high possibility of being incorrect.
In the end, I didn't learn much at all about Mary Magdalene, but rather about the time period in which she lived.
Fiction is more easy to understand since it can recreate the plot in a much organized manner. In contrast, there are so many considerations when basing a story from reality and it can be difficult to focus.
I suggest reading or watching Victor Hugo's Les Miserables. It kinda related about the stigma society plays on women of ill repute and the untold suffering or persecution they undergo. Many of them are victims of the system. But they are not without virtues, reason why Jesus declared that these women are closer to the Kingdom of God than the Pharisees who judge and ostracize sinners and outcasts.
Truth is the task for the religious clerics is to save men from sin rather than condemn them.
For those who want proof are those who do not have intuition. Theses are people who want someone to do their thinking for them. Man MUST make up his own mind, anything else is lazy.
He who would believe without proof demands that others make up his mind for him...He who would not find evidence for himself is the true lazy one. He who credulously believes everything he is told without confirming the fact for himself is a literal idiot..Willingly ignorant! a gullible who battles to hold back the rest of humanity out of fear of the unknown.
Do not trust those with only one book, for they are the worst kinds of men.
what a load of rubbish. There is no god.
Then you are not paying attention to life. I agree the religions of the world have been twisted, maligned and used by the religious leaders of the world. I can't relate to them at the surface, but there is a mysterious synchronicity to life that is unexplainable if you look deeply enough. Opportunities to learn come to us over and over again until we learn the lessons in them. That is not random. There are forces at work behind the scenes, and I can feel their presence sometimes.
I think "Magdalene" could be symbolic as an indicator that Mary was another fisher (or recruiter) of people for the group in the same way that the sign of the fish was used by early Christians. It´s as feasible an explanation as anything else offered in the last 2000 years.
helo everybody, JESUS the son of god maybe,maybe not, but his teachings like so many other profits are the essence for a common people to behave in social and kind manner and to respect he had no religion,or prejudice we are all born with instincts that are the common emotions of man kind i suppose i do not have to type them out.the answers cant exist with out the questions and the questions cant exist with out answers .but all profits that were good still stand, and all stand on a common ground and the teachings are all very very much the same dont impose and dont fight any more battles and kill and impose and violate remember we all do know what is right and wrong----------------
Women could not inherit, does not necessarily mean they could not make money.
This is very true. You make a good argument on the rise of cult characters. I understand that a common thought among modern skeptics is that Jesus is more likely to be a Robin Hood style phenomena. There's no evidence of the Jesus but numerous peices of evidence which describe people who fit some details while greatly missing the mark on others.
Regarding ancient writers who claimed to know someone who knew Jesus, that could never be considered as evidence, at best it's hearsay. Like most of the bible.
I understand what you mean, of course, I'm just enjoying the debate.
Some say Mary Magdalene and Jesus were brother and sister. The children of Julius Caesar and Cleopatra. That is why Agustus Caesar commanded Herod to hunt him down and kill him. Agustus Caesar the adopted son of Julius Caesar could not be god as long as Jesus who's real father was Julius Caesar the god and his mother was Cleopatra the goddess lived.
I guess the old saying "Behind every successful man is a successful woman" escaped the 4 gospels. Given the history of these nomads and the misogynist view at the time, is it any wonder that woman today have little rank in the catholic church. Of course one could also argue that Jesus was a failed prophet and that Mary was a crazy loon.
one of the greatest achievements of females will be that in the future they will be able to boast that they had no hand in writing the bible.
The "logical" mind will never comprehend that if there is a "SUPREME CREATOR GOD', then it follows that He is a supernatural spirit being. How can humans be so arrogant to think that such an obviously superior being would be obligated to "prove" his existence to them? It's absurd.
I believe it is left for humans to begin seeking to KNOW, outside their limited finite experience if such a GOD exists, and if so, what is their purpose in knowing and believing? But no, that's not what humans tend to do. The majority simply refuse to believe anything beyond what they "think" inside their own bony structure, and from what they read that sounds reasonable to them that some other human constructed from their own thinking, learning and so on. If an individual were to begin seeking pure, unadulterated knowledge concerning a Supernatural uncreated Being, a GOD, shouldn't that knowledge come from the SOURCE, the "God Being", not something some human thought and then wrote a book about what he thought? Humans are simply too faulty.
If such a BEING EXISTS might He not respond?
I think it's arrogant to think that there is a god and he/she/it created the entire universe just for us.
As humans, we only have logic and reasoning to go on. Therefore, if this god existed (and also created the universe for us), he would know this and supply us with evidence that can be analyzed with logic and reason.
The idea that one can seek pure unadulterated knowledge seems faulty, given that the best method for seeking information we have is the scientific method. How would you suggest one go about seeking pure knowledge?
Well Jonathan to be honest with you, there is a God. I myself have experienced him in my life. Keep an open mind,have love and want to know the truth is the beginning of knowing. If you want to know you ask and keep asking to know the truth. Just ask, if you dont get an answer keep asking. All the rest will fall into place. Good luck!
the problem with opening your mind, is that your brain falls out.
I'm sorry, but you aren't being honest with me. You seem to be suggesting that if I want to badly enough, I will find this god. That's not the path to finding out the truth. I've seen women who were being abused by their spouses say of their abusive husband "he really is a good guy, he just gets angry sometimes." It's amazing what you can talk yourself into, especially if you really want what it is you are asking for.
Knowing the truth, even in the case of supernatural claims, begins with a process. You need to honestly evaluate the evidence you have. In this case we have a god claim. What evidence is there for this god (or any other god)?
It's nice that @Tania had a spiritual experience(s). It was an interior experience, however, valid only for her.
She told you to "keep an open mind," presuming you doesn't have one already. She also said in another post, "The majority simply refuse to believe anything beyond what they "think" inside their own bony structure..."
She assumed that "asking" for knowledge over and over will somehow result in an experience similar to hers; and further, that that experience isn't an expression of some form of mental illness. After all, she is relying on a personal experience that happened inside her *own* bony structure.
Personally, I find it insulting when people assume that because one does not believe in 'god,' one is somehow lacking in spirituality or just generally lacking, period. I have had spiritual experiences, but I do not believe in god (or goddess, or any other deity or deities).
I recently came across a Penn Jillette video, where he posited this scenario: A woman is on trial for killing her 3 children. Her defense is that "god told me to do it."
In the courtroom, he points out, the jury, the lawyers, judge, witnesses are statistically most likely to be christians. They presumably all believe in the bible, all believe in the miracles, all believe that god told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac.
But, when it comes time to deliberate, what choices do the jury members have in deciding the guilt of this woman?
They have three choices:
1. Guilty
2. Not guilty
3. Not guilty by reason of insanity.
What they do NOT have is this choice:
4. Not guilty because "god told me to do it."
As he pointed out, her defense was actually "Not guilty by reason of insanity." and not one of the jurors would even have considered #4. And yet...all were christians, presumably believing that at some point in the past, god indeed told Abraham to do it.
Why?
Because society as a whole (and therefore the legal system) recognizes that an interior experience is not an excuse for doing outward harm.
Yes, I agree with that. The onus of proof is always on the party making the positive assertion. In this case the onus of proof is on those making a claim that a deity exists. So I expect evidence to back up that claim. Thus far I have not heard or seen any evidence that isn't a logical fallacy or an appeal to personal experience.
Barbara, how do I begin to "KNOW" beyond my finite experience without "reading, thinking, and so on"? How do I receive this pure, unadulterated knowledge from the source (god)? If you're suggesting prayer rather than study or thinking, I tried that until around the age of ten when I started thinking critically and stopped believing the whole thing. Science, philosophy, logic, and reason held forth more promise even at that tender age.
Look around you. The "pure unadulterated knowledge" is evident. Innocent people suffer therefore there is no God.
Supernatural Spirit Beings?
IS this an LSD thing or is my logical mind missing something?
Is that documentary worth watching if you are agnostic? Do they have some proof of her existence outside the bible? I don't want to waste 45 minutes to end up being told that verse says this but that other verse says differently...
While you have religion, any religion, you will never have peace.
Religion is a form of mental illness just like gambling or any problem humans can have.
Cruelty is a staple of man, not religion. With or without religion, leaders would still have conquered, stole, ruled and enslaved. Put blame where it belongs not where you want.
so much for an all powerful god,
That's just it though. People doing evil who are secular, such as Stallin (although he was taking advantage of a religious structure already in place), carry 100% of the blame. Religious people get to circumvent that blame by appealing to their holy text which calls for evil deeds and often rewards those evil deeds.
It is easy to speak against the teachings of Christianity. Do a documentary against Islam nobody does, ok?
Doing such a documentary means having a fatwa issued calling for your death, which is a very seriouse order that many followers of Islam will follow to completion if they get the chance. And even if one decides to risk such a thing it also means embassies, soldiers, and diplomats in Islamic countries will be attacked, all based on what you decided to put in your documentary. And worst of all terrorist activity may be carried out in order to protest your assertions, which of course will kill innocent people that had nothing to do with your documentary. That is an awful lot of destruction and death for very little positive gain. After all do you really think a documentary would change an Islamic person's mind concerning faith? Of course it wouldn't- 1st. they have already been told and believe that we Western devils are well, just that- devils. 2nd. You can't erase a life time of indoctrination with a one hour documentary 3rd. Part of their belief system is to never question Islam or Mohammed's divinity, they could be killed for even watching such a thing and, most definitely killed for distributing or premoting its ideas.
Now don't get me wrong, if some country invaded my country like we did Iraq- killed innocent women and children in public, harrassed and humiliated the local population, overtly raped the economy for their own gain and left it such ruin that people had no running water or electricity, etc. I would think them devils also. I don't mean to make it sound as if all these people are just brain washed, they have valid reason to distrust and hate us. Until we fae that and do something about it we will never be able to sway these people.
Apparently you have no knowledge of Islam at all. If some of the followers are at a fault then it is not the religion to blame, where the source is the Quran. We're not brainwashed, and neither are you, the Quran speaks to a man through logic and reason, which is why many continue to accept Islam. No I don't hate Americans or Westerners, but i don't like their governments and most of the people are careless of their religion in any case. Humans are not devils, but they have been mislead by the devil. And Muhammad is not divine, in fact no one is divine except God Himself, and we believe in all the Prophets of Christianity and Judaism, plus the Quran forbids us from making any distinction between a messenger and another. That aught to lighten you up a bit :)
Once a whore,always a whore.
Why believe Jesus is anything but a fictional character in first place?
Jesus may not be a fictional character. Not to say that he is the Son of God as he is depicted in the New Testament, but take the context of the times, the beliefs and attitudes of the Jews and the religious sects that grew around a mutual hatred of the Romans and the writings of the early Church leaders who claim to have known the disciples and there is reason to believe that Jesus was one of many charismatics who were speaking out at the time. Add a few rumours and myths about miracles and a message that preaches equality for all mankind and a new cult emerges. The persecution of Christians in 64 AD happened only thirty years after Jesus was supposed to have been killed. It would be logical to assume that there were still people alive that had known Jesus or were his followers. The greater question is whether he is the Divine son of God. Now that takes a great leap in faith and leaves logic behind.
I'd contest that. It would only be logical to assume that some of the people who lived may have been people who followed Jesus, if you have proof that Jesus actually existed. There isn't sufficent evidence, so it's not logical to make that assumption.
There is no reason to believe Jesus existed, so no reason to ask if he was the son of god. But otherwise you do make good points.
The whole Mary the prostitue came around because of church elders centuries after Jesus supposedly existed. Their own political, anti-female agenda (they were the leftover Roman Empire after all) caused them to demonise her, even after removing her gospel, just to make sure no one conisdered that there may have been female disciples.
For me this only cements the idea that there is no god. Afterall, if the bible is god's word, yet a bunch of blokes succeeded in perverting it to suit their own agenda, without any noticable repercussions, then that suggests that god's "word" is weak, fallible and entirely mutable. Ergo not all powerful, not magical, not law and not evidence for the existence of any deity, son, holy spirit or other.
There is no direct evidence but there are claims by early Christian writers that they knew someone who claim they knew one of the disciples. Tacitus, the Roman historian, wrote in 116 AD about the crucifixion as if it were fact. The Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrate how badly the Jews of the time longed for a Messiah and how different sects or cults sprung up around this idea. It would not have been necessary to invent a man like Jesus to start the Christian cult. There were enough of these types of individuals around that would have fit this role quite nicely. That myths and legends should be created about one of them after his death is not unthinkable. One just has to look at the following that psychic Edgar Cayce has today or that creep Benny Hinn. Real men who have been imbued with imaginary super powers.
None of this actually proves the existence of a man call Jesus but don't be surprised if proof does emerge that can prove it. It still doesn't make him the son of God or that God even exists. It doesn't really matter whether he lived or not as much as what subsequent generations did regarding the legends that grew around this man. The same would apply to Mary Magdalene.
The only difference, intellectually, between those who argue about the nuances of the Bible and those that argue about the nuances of the "Lord of the Rings" or "Star Wars" is . . . oh wait, they're is no difference ;)
The Lord Of The Rings didn't control and shape Western Civilzation as we know it, it doesn't play a deciding factor in how a huge percentage of our population votes, people don't use it as a guide for how to percieve and treat others. Comparing it to the bible is like comparing the constitution to Deny's friday night menu- its apples and oranges. Have you ever heard of an army that kills in the name of Saruman The White, I mean besides The Fighting Uruk-hai of course?
It isn't "apples and oranges". Arguing the nuance of one fiction or the other is the same. Fruitless. Yes Christianity has had a greater affect/effect on the great "washed" than Lord of the Rings or Star Wars but NO it is no more productive or revealing. The point is it has no greater standing for consideration by a thinking person.
I'd like to think that Lord of the Rings and Star Wars are a bit more grounded in reality and that the arguments considering these two are more meaningful.
Ok Jeremy, where is the verse that says women should be seen, not heard? That is a "saying" not a scripture. And anyway, I thought it referred to children, not women. Not saying that some women shouldn't tone it down a bit at times.
"Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (I Timothy 2:11-14)
I get that Epicurus, but that's not the same thing as "women should be seen and not heard". If we wanted to apply the not being seen portion we'd have to start wearing burqas and I don't think church women are going to submit to that extent. Head wraps are lovely and light veils are as well, but window panes -not even.
I read and re-read the verse, and I asked my mom if she knew of any more, she pulled about 4 right off the top of her head that all said something very similar. Women are slave dogs, and God likes men. End of story, that's YOUR god. Embrace him for what he truly is.
@barbara - The Farmer's Almanac?
LOL! That was funny.
First thing we need to straighten out, is that there is no place in the bible that indicates that Mary of Magdala was a prostitute. Legends and myths sure die hard don't they? Kind of like the one a Christian lady swore up and down it says in the bible that "It's better to plant your seed in the belly of a whore, than on the ground", referring to masturbation. When I asked her for the chapter and verse, she said I dunno, but it's in there somewhere, which sent me on a hunt. I finally found it. Anyone else know? Just asking for fun. :)
Ok. You know better.
Magdelan means reformed courtesan. A lot of Bible mysteries can be explained through language.
I can show you the verse that says women should be seen and not heard. : ) lol giggidy
If I remember correctly, you're right, they never refer to her as a prostitute, just an adulterer caught in the act, and Jesus later talked about exorcising seven demons from her. So as far as I can tell, she was a demon infested cheater. Not a prostitute for money, just for pleasure : )
Again, there is no scriptural connection between Mary Magdalene and the woman "caught in the act". As far as Mary's "indiscretions" are concerned, it was ONLY that Jesus had cast seven demons out of her, nothing more, nothing less. People have read things into her life that just weren't there. At least not according to the scriptural account.
its in Genesis 38 the story of Onan.
Exactly. I think that saying must go back for many centuries and it still prevails to this day.