1) She, Mary Magdalene, is mentioned as accompanying Jesus on his journeys (Luke 8:2) and is listed in the Gospel of Matthew as being present at his crucifixion (27:56). In the Gospel of John, she is recorded as the first witness of Jesus' resurrection (John 20:14-16); (Mark 16:9 later manuscripts).
2) In the Gospel of Mary it is Peter who is opposed to Mary's words, because she is a woman...
3) Levi, in his defense of Mary and her teaching, tells Peter "Surely the Savior knows her very well. That is why he loved her more than us." In the Gospel of Philip, a similar statement is made about Mary Magdalene.
4) Mary comes to fullness, not only as a woman ahead of her times, but as an exemplary disciple, a witness to the Jesus' ministry, a visionary of the glorified Jesus, and in contest with Peter, in a man's world. Perhaps it is time, being the 21st Century that one need not longer look at her as they have in the past, but perhaps as the 13th Apostle (the forgotten one).
5) A true look into Mary's life, we see the erroneous view that Mary of Magdala was not a prostitute and for what it is worth-it is a cheap piece of theological fiction, of some jealous madman. It is perhaps, a step to freeze the legitimacy of women's leadership qualities. That no longer can be frozen. Plus it cheapens the viewer's look at the first Christians. This was a time the disciples were putting together, the doctrines of Christ's foundation, and I suppose being in a male orientated world, the disciples were concerned about reliability, how people would accept-mentally being able to accept, a female teacher of God, Jesus Christ as part of the trinity, incarnate.
6) We see in John 20 and, Matthew 28 of Mary Magdalene, wanting to take hold of Jesus' feet. This has been widely popularized in many dimensions, with critical comments, a point of contention. Let's straighten this out, now and forever. There is nothing good on this planet earth that Satan and his followers have not tried to corrupt, thus, this simply is a textual corruption. How can one tell? The original text read "fear" rather than "touch" so it should read, "...do not fear me" not "...do not touch me" or perhaps it could have read "...do not fear to touch me" the words "...fear to touch," are the ones in question, because the words are odd for Jesus' indentation. It is not the way he spoke. Another point is, later on in the same chapter, John, to Thomas Didymus, Jesus says in so many words: touch my hands and side... Again, it is to Mary's discredit I do believe such textual corruption was made. I repeat Thomas is actually encouraged to touch. On the other hand, Jesus might have been simply saying in his own way to Mary: I'm really me, here, right now, and you do not need to fear or touch me. Again, Thomas, like Peter, was both a little weak, and perchance, Jesus was trying to say: faith is better than denial or even doubt, the two sins of Thomas and Peter. There are many possibilities here, but the main factor being, he was not scolding her for anything, as the corrupter of the text was trying to install, doubt again.
7) Dialogue: "(Mary) said, 'I saw the Lord in a vision and I said to him, 'Lord, I saw you today in a vision.' He answered and said to me: "Blessed are you that you did not waver at the sight of me. For where the mind is, there is the treasure.' I said to him, 'So now, Lord, does a person who sees a vision see it through the soul or through the spirit?' (From the Gospel of Mary, contained in Berolinensis 8502)
Comments on the Dialogue:
In the conversation, Jesus Christ teaches that the inner self is composed of: the soul, spirit, and mind, and visions are seen and understood in the mind. (Andrew and Peter oppose her...)
The dialogue and context of Mary called, Magdalene, should be viewed I do believe in a broader Christen context. She is if anything, an intriguing glimpse into that long lot and biased past, the ancient years of the past, and into the apostles (and their human nature), and in what they only allowed a look into, some 2000-years ago, one can now see a deeper Christianity, and its identity.
The confrontation between Peter and Mary can also be found in the Gospel of Thomas, Pistis Sophia, and the Coptic Gospel of the Egyptians. It would seem-and understandable so-Peter and Andrew preferred, and represented the orthodox positions of their day, which rejected the authority of women to teach, at near any cost.
It might be noted, psychologically, Peter was heartbroken, because of his denial of Christ, and thus, Christ restored his credibility-or tried to, this never happened to Mary, and this may even have played a roll in Peter's heavy confrontation with her, she was unspoiled in this area, where he was not. Like it or not, such betrayals, although forgivable, play a roll mentally in self approval, and maybe worth, he wasn't getting any from Mary. We too often think of the Apostles as superhuman, when in essence, they are humans, although chosen for specific task.
No: 560 (12-28-2009)
| See Dennis' web site: http://dennissiluk.tripod.com Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Dennis_Siluk_Ed.D. |  |
No comments:
Post a Comment