mary magdelene
-
Prodigal Son
- Senior Member
- Posts: 709
- Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 5:49 pm
- Christian: No
mary magdelene
mary magdelene--what do you guys think of the newest evidence that she was one of the apostles and possibly greatly responsible for the spread of christianity?
-
Prodigal Son
- Senior Member
- Posts: 709
- Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 5:49 pm
- Christian: No
i saw two discovery specials on it. i'll try to find the info somewhere else as well.-
Jac3510
- Ultimate Member
- Posts: 5472
- Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
- Location: Fort Smith, AR
- Contact:
While waiting on the link, let me just say that I saw the same programs. I'm pretty sure they were from the Ancient Mysteries series, or some name like that. They also did work on David, Jesus, Peter, Mary (mother of Jesus) . . .
All of them are taken from a VERY liberal perspective, and absolutely no credence is given to conservative positions. I remember in the program on David they interviewed campaign managers for modern politicians and asked if they saw any "spin" work done in the accounts about him.
Well, enter marvelous scholarship :p
Anyway, the Mary-was-the-premier-disciple-and-Peter-pushed-her-out-of-power-because-he-was-jealous position is just ridiculous, and there is no "new" evidence. They took the work of the Gospel of Mary (and I don't know this, but I'm pretty sure they don't actually HAVE it? Mostly conjecture, I think . . .)
They also took a lot from the Cross Gospel and the Gospel of Peter. All of these are second century gnostic writings and are absolutely worthless. We've known about them for a very long time, so I don't think anything about the argument at all. Neither do any qualified historians. About the only people I know who are pushing the idea are liberal theologians (read Havard/Yale/Princeton grads.), feminist theologians, talk-show hosts, and atheists.
All of them are taken from a VERY liberal perspective, and absolutely no credence is given to conservative positions. I remember in the program on David they interviewed campaign managers for modern politicians and asked if they saw any "spin" work done in the accounts about him.
Well, enter marvelous scholarship :p
Anyway, the Mary-was-the-premier-disciple-and-Peter-pushed-her-out-of-power-because-he-was-jealous position is just ridiculous, and there is no "new" evidence. They took the work of the Gospel of Mary (and I don't know this, but I'm pretty sure they don't actually HAVE it? Mostly conjecture, I think . . .)
They also took a lot from the Cross Gospel and the Gospel of Peter. All of these are second century gnostic writings and are absolutely worthless. We've known about them for a very long time, so I don't think anything about the argument at all. Neither do any qualified historians. About the only people I know who are pushing the idea are liberal theologians (read Havard/Yale/Princeton grads.), feminist theologians, talk-show hosts, and atheists.
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue