atheist wrote:Some explanations about Hebrew customs and habits can be given, but it's still awkward when you relate it to a supposed Saviour and paragon of virtue. Why he allows such a cruel humiliation from a woman, to wipe his feet with her hair? So much he despised women? Just as much as the rest of his contemporaries in that patriarchal community?
I find this statement of yours quite offensive: “Why he allows such a cruel humiliation from a woman, to wipe his feet with her hair.”
It sounds like you are the one that despises women, not Jesus, and also that you are trying to interject some superiority of your own here with a snide remark you made here years ago.
The Atheist point of view is not a superior position; it is one from among many. At the end of life you'll discover for your own what truth you reject is. Then it will be too late. All your arguments for atheism and attempts to bring disrepute to the bible and this gospel account you allude too in this post are spurious.
Your comment - “Why he allows such a cruel humiliation from a woman, to wipe his feet with her hair” shows your contempt and narrow minded focus as well as reveals that your have great faith in your own opinions and nothing anyone can say here can convince you otherwise.
I am surprised you returned...
-
-
Science is man's invention - creation is God's
(by B. W. Melvin)
Old Polish Proverb:
Not my Circus....not my monkeys
Thank you for your perspective on "the washing of feet" topic, I hadn't looked at that scene before the way you have viewed it. I do accept your questions as being posed in good faith, I hope you will pose more questions and hopefully answers can be found.
I'll let you know my perspective on the washing of Jesus' feet by Mary. First, I agree with most of the post that August gave you in reply in 2005, I have to say. You did respond to August's post and told him or her that really you couldn't agree with their explanations.
Your main point was that "Jesus allows this terrible humiliation of a woman in front of everybody, he didn't do anything to stop it and this was always the most disturbing thing for me."
(And from way back at the start of the thread: "Even when I was a convinced Christian, there was some odd acts of the Jesus portrayed in the NT that never quite made sense to me." Quote from Bible you then give: "Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment." (Jhn, 12:3))
You seem to disallow the possibility of Mary having made a valid and honest gesture here though -- that as an individual with her own personality and her own creative choices of spontaneous expression, she would have done this gesture as an honest action and not as a humiliated or degrading action. But I think that's what happened. Jesus didn't ask for her to do this gesture, but when he saw the honesty of her intent and her faith, he allowed this from her.
I think there can be a fine line between a person humbling themself (acting with self-respect) and degrading themself (acting in the absence of self-respect). You can have the exact same action with the exact same response even and in one case it is humility and in the other it is degradation -- for example, Jesus himself non-violently allowed himself to be lashed and a mocking crown of thorns be pushed on his head. I would argue that Jesus humbled himself but did so willingly and knowingly and so despite even the efforts by others that this would be a degradation, it was in fact one of the most powerful spiritual performances ever, and he returned good for their evil, "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do."
I think Jesus in that moment with Mary recognized that she was honestly acting in the former sense of humility instead of the latter of degradation. To the extent others may disagree and second-guess (eg thinking the expensive perfume would have been better sold and the money given to the poor; thinking that her action was in poor form and she was humiliating herself), I think Jesus perceived the truth in her heart about her intent.
What was the faith that she showed which I mentioned above? I think there is another aspect here that hasn't been considered. From John 12: "Leave her alone," Jesus replied. "It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me." It wasn't just any old ointment or perfume that was used, it was what was meant for his body someday when he died.
As August pointed out in context, Lazarus (Mary's brother) had just recently been raised from the dead, by all accounts a high point in the public ministry of Jesus, and part of Mary's actions can be perceived in reaction to the emotions of that event which had only just recently occured. But Jesus had also been teaching that he himself would suffer and die -- which was incredibly hard for those who believed in him as the Deliverer and Son of God to comprehend. The apostles keep refusing to accept and understand. In the next chapter you have a bewildered Simon Peter at the Last Supper asking, "Lord, where are you going?" The events were rapidly nearing the time when the crucifixion would occur and still it wasn't sinking in that he was going to suffer and die.
But Mary, she didn't mentally block out this understanding, she I think perceived past the dreamy hopes of many of the apostles and other believers, she heard the hard truths of what Jesus was saying and she accepted and anointed his living body and had faith.
Cook wrote:As August pointed out in context, Lazarus (Mary's brother) had just recently been raised from the dead, by all accounts a high point in the public ministry of Jesus, and part of Mary's actions can be perceived in reaction to the emotions of that event which had only just recently occured.
Different Mary, dude, so . . . no.
And I stand by my earlier post in this thread. Also, we're told we'll often be called to do things that are foolish in the eyes of others. This is regardless of one's gender.
Cook wrote:As August pointed out in context, Lazarus (Mary's brother) had just recently been raised from the dead, by all accounts a high point in the public ministry of Jesus, and part of Mary's actions can be perceived in reaction to the emotions of that event which had only just recently occured.
Different Mary, dude, so . . . no.
What verses makes you beleive that this is a different Mary than the one that is the sister of Lazurus? There is nothing to indicate otherwise and they are in the house where Lazurs and Mrtha and Mary lived when this event occurred.
John 12
1Then Jesus six days before the passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, which had been dead, whom he raised from the dead.
2There they made him a supper; and Martha served: but Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him.
3Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.
Cook wrote:As August pointed out in context, Lazarus (Mary's brother) had just recently been raised from the dead, by all accounts a high point in the public ministry of Jesus, and part of Mary's actions can be perceived in reaction to the emotions of that event which had only just recently occured.
Different Mary, dude, so . . . no.
What verses makes you beleive that this is a different Mary than the one that is the sister of Lazurus? There is nothing to indicate otherwise and they are in the house where Lazurs and Mrtha and Mary lived when this event occurred.
John 12
1Then Jesus six days before the passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, which had been dead, whom he raised from the dead.
2There they made him a supper; and Martha served: but Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him.
3Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.
Didn't this same thing happen another time in the house of Simon the Leper?
Mar 14:3 ¶ And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she brake the box, and poured [it] on his head.
Mar 14:4 And there were some that had indignation within themselves, and said, Why was this waste of the ointment made?
Mar 14:5 For it might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, and have been given to the poor. And they murmured against her.
Mar 14:6 And Jesus said, Let her alone; why trouble ye her? she hath wrought a good work on me.
Mar 14:7 For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.
Mar 14:8 She hath done what she could: she is come aforehand to anoint my body to the burying.
Mar 14:9 Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, [this] also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her.
"Faith sees the invisible, believes the unbelievable, and receives the impossible." - Corrie Ten Boom
Act 9:6
And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?
Good catch there. I can't see how Mark 14 and John 12 would be describing different events. Both accounts describe the anointing of Jesus' feet as taking place at a very specific time in his public ministry, the days leading up to the Passover and Feast, his entry into Jerusalem, and the Last Supper.
YLTYLT, you mentioned "they are in the house where Lazurs and Mrtha and Mary lived when this event occurred".
I can understand where you get that impression from John 12:1, but notice that it says: "came to Bethany, where Lazarus was". It doesn't specifically say that they were at Lazarus' house but in Bethany.
Mark 14:3 doesn't mention Lazarus but also confirms they were "in Bethany", and then specifically where in Bethany, they were "in the house of Simon the leper" when the event took place.
LittleShepherd wrote:
Cook wrote:As August pointed out in context, Lazarus (Mary's brother) had just recently been raised from the dead, by all accounts a high point in the public ministry of Jesus, and part of Mary's actions can be perceived in reaction to the emotions of that event which had only just recently occured.
Different Mary, dude, so . . . no.
And I stand by my earlier post in this thread. Also, we're told we'll often be called to do things that are foolish in the eyes of others. This is regardless of one's gender.
Hi LittleShepherd,
Actually it is quite clear this is the same Mary. John 11:1-2: "Now a man named Lazarus was sick. He was from Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. This Mary, whose brother Lazarus now lay sick, was the same one who poured perfume on the Lord and wiped his feet with her hair."
Good catch there. I can't see how Mark 14 and John 12 would be describing different events. Both accounts describe the anointing of Jesus' feet as taking place at a very specific time in his public ministry, the days leading up to the Passover and Feast, his entry into Jerusalem, and the Last Supper.
YLTYLT, you mentioned "they are in the house where Lazurs and Mrtha and Mary lived when this event occurred".
I can understand where you get that impression from John 12:1, but notice that it says: "came to Bethany, where Lazarus was". It doesn't specifically say that they were at Lazarus' house but in Bethany.
Mark 14:3 doesn't mention Lazarus but also confirms they were "in Bethany", and then specifically where in Bethany, they were "in the house of Simon the leper" when the event took place.
LittleShepherd wrote:
Cook wrote:As August pointed out in context, Lazarus (Mary's brother) had just recently been raised from the dead, by all accounts a high point in the public ministry of Jesus, and part of Mary's actions can be perceived in reaction to the emotions of that event which had only just recently occured.
Different Mary, dude, so . . . no.
And I stand by my earlier post in this thread. Also, we're told we'll often be called to do things that are foolish in the eyes of others. This is regardless of one's gender.
Hi LittleShepherd,
Actually it is quite clear this is the same Mary. John 11:1-2: "Now a man named Lazarus was sick. He was from Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. This Mary, whose brother Lazarus now lay sick, was the same one who poured perfume on the Lord and wiped his feet with her hair."
All the best,
Cook
Concerning the events in Mark14 and John 12 with the spikenard:
Are you saying that these are the same event or that they both took place at Simon the Leper's house?
At first I could see that they could be interpreted as the same event, but the more I analyzed this, I see that it cannot be. John 11 indicates that Lazarus did live in Bethany. John 12:1 indicates that this Jesus came to Bethany 6 days prior to passover. Mark 14:1 indicates that event happened when the passover was 2 days away. So it might depend on whether when it says "Jesus came to Bethany", did this mean that is when he arrived in Bethany or was this when he left on his journey towards Bethany. If we interpret it as his arrival time then this would be very poosible to be separate events a few days apart. But most importantly, in John, Mary poured the spikehard on Jesus feet. In Mark, the spikenard was poured on the His head. But he could have gone to the house of Simon the Leper and stayed there the whole time, which would mean both events took place there, in which case you would be right.
But you are correct that it does not have to be Lazarus house. There is nothing that says specifically so. But it seems the most logical, since Mary and Martha and Lazarus are all there and Martha was doing the serving.
But I we seem to agree on the conclusion about Mary. It is definitely the same Mary that was the sister to Lazarus, which was what I was attempting to prove. But thanks for the correction, that it does not have to be Lazarus' house.
