mary magdelene
Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 4:06 pm
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?
Evidence for God from Science
"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
https://discussions.godandscience.org/
mary magdelene
Page 1 of 1
Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 4:17 pm
Link?
Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 4:45 pm
i saw two discovery specials on it. i'll try to find the info somewhere else as well.Posted: Sat Dec 25, 2004 8:38 pm
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.