Mary Magdalene...jezebel or prophet??

he certainly does not evince....

[derail] 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
[/derail]
 
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?
 
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.
 
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
 
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:
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
What evidence have we that Sweet Mary ever actually existed? About as much as we have of her dearly beloved Josh ...
 
We have her toast.

WRONG MARY! You're soooo confused!

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.
 
WRONG MARY! You're soooo confused!

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/7329462e6c181e039.jpg[/qimg]

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

Back
Top Bottom