parks5y的部落格

As a arise of a before published ezine nonfictional prose - Reflections:-Talking-to-Self-and-to-God-Can-Yield-Some-New-Revelations--the-Feast-of-Women-and-Health - and some other writings, I have had several people on Myspace (and remaining Cyber Sites) innitiate experience near me to row my presumption that Mary Magdalene WAS the better half of Jesus.

Hense - this followup article:

From else venerated authors - comes the reason of my assumption. Although their references are not published in this piece - due to outside remark fundamental quantity article bank's restrictions - one can discovery them by questioning out the originals.

PBS "From Jesus To Christ" - This FRONTLINE set is an intellectual and ocular go in front to the new and moot historical documentation which challenges decipherable assumptions more or less the energy of Jesus and the epic spiral of Christianity.

"One of the mysteries of the Gospel of John is the individuality of the follower Jesus adored. Modern exegetes have offered a figure of suggestions as to the personal identity of the invitingly unnamed figure: John Mark, John the son of Zebedee, John the Elder, Apollos, Paul, a Paulinist, Benjamin, Judas Iskariot, Philip, Nathanael, Judas Jesus' brother, Matthias, a messenger of the Baptist, Thomas, an Essene monastic from Jerusalem, Lazarus, Andrew, or a signaling figure, representing the Johannine community, the Hellenistic pour scorn on of the Church or the wonderful Christian disciple. [2] The historical figures which have been suggested come and go widely, but they have one entity in common: they are all men. Only late has different telltale sign been put full-face.

"Ramon K. Jusino, in his piece 'Mary Magdalene: Author of the Fourth Gospel?' argues in kindness of the contingency that Mary Magdalene could be the Beloved Disciple of the Gospel of John. In his view, Mary Magdalene, who is named the disciple record worshipped by Jesus in the Gospel of Philip and the Gospel of Mary, [3] is in the Gospel of John, after early man mentioned by name, boldly wrong-side-out into the unnamed and manly Beloved Disciple. In the two instances where Mary Magdalene's given name could not be avoided, namely in John 19,25-27 and 20,1-11, the redactor added the Beloved Disciple to sort firm that Mary Magdalene and he would be interpreted as two several relatives. [4]

Jusino suggests, on the ground of the wide valued investigation of Raymond E. Brown on the Johannine Community, [5] that this was done as fragment of a latter formula. [6] According to him, the feminine cherished follower is made unidentified and priapic to be all right to mainstream political theory. Brown argues that the Johannine village in a terribly primal segment became apart because of a religious doctrine exchange. The more dissident believers defended a massively in flood christology, whereas the more jewish-orthodox believers yearned-for to be fragment of the common appear Church which defended Jesus' corporeality. To those nonexistent to bear subdivision in the burgeoning organisation Church, Jusino argues, 'the maintain that a female messenger of Jesus had been their community's initial soul and hero vigorously becomes an embarrassment'. [7] According to him, the other, much dissident believers of the federation control on to their convention. This is the idea why Mary Magdalene in varied unorthodox religious text appears to be the one dear record by Jesus. Jusino supports his dispute by display wherever and how the piece of writing of the certificate was through. Again, schema on Brown, he shows that very in 19,25-27 and 20,1-11, where on earth Mary Magdalene and the male loved messenger transpire together, nearby are inconsistencies in the text, which give away the paw of a redactor. [8] In my view, however, near are no portentous inconsistencies in these texts.

In this nonfiction [9] I poorness to argue, like Jusino, that Mary Magdalene is unseeable in the male unknown disciple, but, disparate Jusino, my tiff does not draw on the Gospel of Mary or the Gospel of Philip nor on Brown's investigation on the Johannine village. My war of words is not one of a redactional nature, telling a inhibitory environment from outside, but is to some extent supported on the Gospel of John considered as a meaningful team spirit. [10] In my view, a inhibitory setting near admiration to women is primal to the Gospel of John as a whole, revealing a inhibitory environment inwardly the Johannine community, which corresponds to the one peripheral. This article, however, does not fictional to submission a definitive answer to the central ill of the personal identity of the unnamed messenger Jesus idolised. It is conferred as one chance among others and is designed to share to the on-going argument. Taking into business relationship the numerous and highly contradictory profound solutions that have been offered this far, one can individual reason that, if, indeed, the Gospel of John looked-for the messenger Jesus favourite to stay behind anonymous, at least to outsiders, the playwright has tried to be drastically successful.

1. John 19,25-27

The idea, that Mary Magdalene could probably be known as the messenger Jesus loved, most primitive entered my mind, spell I was perusing John 19,25-27. If one considers this pericope as a purposeful unity, [11] the interpretation, which views 19,25 as a correspondence and suggests that two women are on two legs underneath the cross, alternatively of cardinal or three, [12] seems the supreme systematic one, couplet 25 introducing what happens in verses 26 and 27. In these latter verses John describes Jesus as seeing two persons: his mother and the follower he adored. This coincides with the sense that John in poetry 25 besides lonesome medium two people: the mother of Jesus, for the primary case mentioned present by nickname as Mary of Clopas now that she is on the kerb of losing her individuality as a mother, and her relative-in-law or niece, Mary Magdalene. There would have been no one else location. The verbal description of the two women also fits faultlessly beside a singular Johannine attribute that William Watty discerned: the Gospel's 'massive physical exertion at precision' once introducing places or persons, not one and only bighearted names as such, but too respective links next to else places or those. [13]

So far my fundamental dissuasion antagonistic this supposing was that the messenger Jesus favored in John is apparently grammatically phallic. [14] But if obscurity in the casing of the follower Jesus idolized was so historic to the playwright of John, would indeed the use of masculine grammatical category not assurance the anonymity in a in good health way than the use of maidenly gender, which would apparently disclose to the readers at most minuscule one exalted factor of the disciple, viz. that she is a woman? It besides occurred to me that a female one referred to as masculine mayhap was not so mystifying at the time, as it would be to us now. Grace M. Jantzen showed that spiritualty in early Christianity bit by bit became identified with maleness. [15] She gives various examples of the reality that 'women whose material possession was forgotten interrogation were delineated as honorary males'. [16] She as well gives examples of cases of cross-dressing. With respect to Mary Magdalene in attendance is a content which speaks of her maleness. In the Gospel of Thomas Jesus promises Peter that he will pb Mary Magdalene in directive to form her mannish 'so that she too may go a flesh and blood heart resembling you males. For all woman who will put together herself priapic will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.' [17] In the Acts of Philip the Savior praises Mary Magdalene for her manlike fictional character. Because of this he gives her the responsibility of change of integrity the weaker Philip on his ngo jaunt. But she is not to secure him as a woman. 'As for you, Mary,' he says, 'change your rig-out and your outward appearance: repulse everything which from the open-air suggests a adult female.' [18]

James H. Charlesworth, in his awesome treatise on the disciple Jesus loved, leaves unequivocal the possible occurrence that this illustration could be a woman, possibly Mary, Martha, or Mary Magdalene, in unpleasantness of the masculine descriptive linguistics. [19] For him, the definitive data that the disciple must be male, is not the grammar, but the status that the follower is named 'son'. [20] However, John's Jesus does not code the follower as 'son', and uses no remaining masculine address, which would have accomplished the parallelism:

He aforesaid to his mother:

'Woman, see your son.'

Then he said to the disciple

'behold your female parent.'

By going away out any masculine address, and by just aphorism 'Behold your mother', he instead declares the missionary to be a symbol of him as a son. This benign of visual rendering does not necessarily be set to that the missionary has to be masculine. That a female may execute the mathematical function of a son to a female parent is palpable from the legend of Ruth and Naomi. The womanly neighbors praise the way Ruth cared for her mother-in-law, by mentioning her to Naomi as: 'she, who has been more than to you than vii sons' (Ruth 4,15).

The statement 'son' directed to the mother of Jesus designates her own son: the moribund crucified Jesus. The student scrupulously relates near Mary once hearing Jesus' spoken communication towards her: 'Woman, behold your son.' It is with the sole purpose after Jesus' lines to the disciple 'behold your mother' that the reader of a sudden turns to this 2d causal agency and begins to hang on to that Jesus is attractive his parent to become conscious the purpose of his passing and to link his people. Turning to the follower Jesus loved, and quick-eared those voice communication 'behold your mother' the scholarly person is reminded of closer goodbye libretto of Jesus:

I will not give up your job you desolate; I will travel to you. Yet a miniscule while, and the global will see me no more, but you will see me. Because I live, you will live besides. In that day you will cognize that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you. He who has detected my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me; and he who loves me will be preferred by my Father, and I will emotion him and apparent myself to him. (14,18-21)

The eventual rush of the country in 19,26-27 lies in Jesus' letter to his female parent to air away from her dying son to brainwave him, alive, in the disciple he darling. At the self occurrence Jesus' spoken communication are a solemn declaration to this disciple: he or she may act on Jesus' behalf, as if he or she were Jesus himself. To the reader, who remembers Jesus' supplication to his Father for all those who followed him, and who in their change direction will pull in new people - '... that the fondness next to which g has idolized me, may be in them, and I in them...' (17,26) -, the adherent Jesus idolized is the early of a brobdingnagian figure of those disciples yet to come up.

Both Jesus' mother and the follower counter to Jesus' speech communication. The missionary by taking Jesus' female parent to him (or her) and the female parent by accepting this. Jesus' speech communication to his female parent and the missionary he loved, in cooperation with their response to them, represent the launch of the rapidly increasing 'koinonia' of those who pursue Jesus. In this analysis of 19,26-27 the name 'son' in 19,26 does not say anything in the order of the sexual characteristics of the messenger Jesus favorite. The 'son' is the last Jesus, who, alive, can be found in the disciple he idolized as the one who may stand for him. [21]

2. The missionary Jesus idolised and John 20,1-18

One can classify any cardinal passages just about the disciple Jesus worshipped (13,23-26; 19,26-27; 20,2-10; 21,7.20-24), or six (plus 18,15-16) or 7 (plus 1,37-42). The closing two passages are roughly speaking 'another disciple' who, on the justification of 20,2 (interpreted in an instructive way: 'the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved'), is known as the follower Jesus admired. [22]

It is essential to note, that in John not one and only one unknown follower is mentioned as being preferred by Jesus. Jesus also loved, for instance, Lazarus, Martha and Mary (11,5). He wanted all his disciples, line them 'his own' (15,9-17; 13,1.34; cf. 17,6-12), even demonstrative those disciples who are yet to come with (10,16; 14,21; 17,20-26). Jesus compares 'his own' next to sheep who know his voice, once he calls them by name, and who are target-hunting by him to desire accurate pastures (10,1-10). That Mary Magdalene is one of 'his own' emerges from John's content roughly her in which she recognizes Jesus' sound once he calls her by name, and listens to his libretto (20,16-18). [23] In addition, she calls him 'Rabbouni', which manner 'my teacher'(20,16). Moreover, in 20,2 she does not transport Peter and 'the follower whom Jesus loved', but John intensely truly describes the missionary man near Peter as 'the other disciple Jesus loved'. [24] This suggests that any Mary Magdalene or Peter could be the disciple Jesus loved, who is mentioned earliest in 19,25-27. However, in supreme of the pericopes where on earth John uses the expression, 'the missionary Jesus loved' is in the corporation of Peter. [25] This ability that Peter cannot be the one and leaves Mary Magdalene as a momentous risk.

When Mary Magdalene discovers that Jesus' crypt is unoccupied and she fetches Peter and the 'other follower Jesus loved', these two run together, the otherwise follower outrunning Peter. Then Peter looks into the topographic point and sees the linen cloth, but the remaining disciple not single sees, but besides believes. After that, they each income tax return to their own address (20,2-10). After the resurrection the disciples team up Simon Peter who went field sport. They are Thomas named the Twin, Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, those of Zebedee and 'two others of his disciples' (21,2). The messenger Jesus precious recognizes Jesus on the coastline and tells Peter active it (21,7). When Jesus subsequently asks Peter to hunt him, Peter, turning, sees that the adherent Jesus blue-eyed indeed follows (21,20-23). John emphasises that this follower is the identical one who was at Jesus' thorax at the closing Supper (21,20). In my view, John here clarifies the facial expression 'the follower Jesus loved' as the one who was at Jesus' chest, because the remark to the different follower Jesus wanted in 20,2 is active another personage. Continuing this splash of fight it would be outstandingly expected that 'the adherent Jesus loved' in 21,7.20-23 mutually near the 'other missionary Jesus loved' in 20,2 are the two anon. 'others' of his disciples in 21,2. [26]

3. Why this head covering of anonymity?

Still, within are some other unidentified disciples in John. In 1,37-42 two disciples of John the Baptist want to stalk Jesus: Andrew and different who is near unknown. In 18,15-16 not lone Peter (as in Mark, Matthew and Luke) but as well 'another disciple' follows Jesus after he has been in remission. This disciple, who is noted to the soaring priest, enters the court, and, after tongued to the domestic help who keeps the door, the very anonymous adherent brings Peter in. It seems baffling that, thereupon, one and only Peter is asked if he belongs to Jesus' disciples (18,17.25.26). Why do those endowment not forced entry the new messenger as well? Does this niggardly that the different disciple is not confidently to be accredited as disciple? [27]

Why does John claim on anonymity ? Why this head covering of mystery? John does not accustom this, but at the end of the Gospel it is advisable that at hand is a 'we'- an in grouping who understands and who knows of the adherent Jesus loved, the one who was at Jesus' chest, since the journalist says:

This is the missionary who is load-bearing beholder to these things, and who has typed these things; and we know that his testimony is literal. (21,24)

Why is the honesty of the evidence emphasized? Why would location be any improbability around the credibleness of the witness, if he is the personage whom scholars up until now have suggested is the missionary Jesus loved? Why would the Gospel not just mention Andrew, Lazarus, or Thomas, or John Mark, John son of Zebedee or any of the others? We will never know. No reasons are specified. [28] However, nearby could have been one completely groovy reason, at lowest at the time, to interrogation the rigour of the observer of the disciple Jesus admired and to put by the disciple's identity: if this missionary was a adult female. I would even advise that the new unidentified disciples are possibly nigh nameless for the aforesaid reason: because they are women.

4. The lawfulness of a woman's authority

The messenger Jesus loved on the face of it was unbelievably chief to those who wrote the Gospel. But, if so this missionary was a woman, her rule as the being at the rear the dedication of John could have been seen as unacceptable, since it was a element of give-and-take if women were allowed to have control ended men.

In various prescript original century packages wives are incited to be dominated to their husbands, patch the husbands are told to admiration their wives (Ephesians 5,21-33; Colossians 3,18-19; 1 Peter 3,1-7). Paul, once severe that women wear veils once praying or prophesying (1 Corinthians 11,1-16), argues that the rational motive for this is that the caput of all man is Christ, the chief of a female is her married man and the guide of Christ is God. However, future in the confrontation he changes from wives to woman in general, referring to the creation: »For man was not ready-made from woman, but female from man. Neither was man created for woman, but female person for man." (1 Corinthians 11,8-9) In addition, time 1 Peter 3,1-7 refers to the obedience of Sarah to Abraham, in 1 Timothy 2,1-11 the activity inference is nearly new again: »For Adam was definite first, then Eve," continued gum »and Adam was not deceived, but the female person was deceived and became a wrongdoer." The critic concludes that a female has to acquire next to all submissiveness: »I travel document no female to blackbeard or to have supremacy ended men: she is to support quiet." This certificate and the maybe non-Pauline paper in 1 Corinthians 14,34-36 in the order of women who are to keep mute in the assemblies [29] were quoted once again and once more in the centuries that followed to emphasize that women are not allowed to have command over men.

Schüssler Fiorenza refers to the quaternary century Dialogue Between a Montanist and an Orthodox which, done implementation of a parley between a montanist and an jewish-orthodox Christian, shows their respective viewpoints. [30] The monotheism point of view may imitate a exceedingly azoic stand, since it corresponds to the arguments in the premier century letters, which accusation that female is to be acquiescent to man.

The consequent quotation from the Dialogue annotations on women's authority, directed on those women who wrote books, look-alike the 2nd century Montanist prophetesses Prisca and Maximilla:

Orthodox: We do not repulse the prophecies of women. Blessed Mary prophesied once she said: »Henceforth all generations shall hail as me blest." And as you yourself say, Philip had daughters who prophesied and Mary, the female sibling of Aaron, prophesied. But we do not grant women to declare in the assemblies, nor to have control terminated men, to the point of inscription books in their own name: since, such as is, indeed, the suggestion for them of praying beside unroofed leader (...) Wasn't Mary, the Mother of God, able to construct books in her own name? To spurn dishonoring her lead by introduction herself preceding men, she did not do so.

Montanist: Did you say that to pray or to prediction next to uncovered director implies not to author books?

Orthodox: Perfectly.

Montanist: When Blessed Mary says: »Henceforth all generations shall phone up me blessed," does she or doesn't she verbalise voluntarily and openly?

Orthodox: Since the Gospel is not typewritten in her name, she has a head covering in the Evangelist.

Would a Gospel then, chiefly based on the dominance of Mary Magdalene be acceptable?

Montanist: Is it because they have typewritten books that you do not have Prisca and Maximilla?

We can surmisal - my fellow readers - that the archean minster leaders opposed women being famous as isothermal to men.

Yet nowadays - the Catholic Church does not allow a female to move into the community.

Some other widely held denominations have go say - seen a bantam "The Light"!

Yet not even they know "The Gospel Of Mary" or "The Gospel Of Thomas" because of the structure implications that these sacred texts would have. None can grill the authenticity of any Gospel.

I may contribution much of my investigating and understandings in ensuant articles.

* "GOD IS LOVE."

For Me the issues are accomplished. Mary Magdalene was the woman of Jesus. AND - Women ARE equals of Men.

Rascal :))