posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 10:03 AM
Originally posted by 00777
In anycase, as for accusations of possible fabrications about the ressurrection, well, if this was true, then don't you think that the same alleged
church conspirators would also fabricate accounts of Mary being a harlot in the Bible too, to bolster up their views ? Well i already debunked this
nonsense about possible fabrications, as such conspirators wouldn't have used Mary as a witness, as I explained, but also if they had fabricated
things to discredit Mary, they'd have added that she was a harlot, in the Bible aswell. But instead the Bible does not say she was a harlot. Just a
woman who had evil spirits and came to Jesus to be freed. Now it has been assumed that she may have been sexually immoral, and could have been, if
having such evil spirits, but we have no evidence, and it is not in the Bible, but we can understand why such assumptions were made, but not to
discredit her or play her role in the Bible down. As I said, what bigger role could be played down than that of her being an example of being freed by
Jesus, and the first to witness his ressurrection, a great responsibility, and she is a Saint too.
As you may know the confusion around Mary and the harlot have to with some assuming that Mary was the same woman that anointed Christ with oil, the
same woman said to have been a harlot. There are other confusions here as well.
Whatever the case, the story of the woman and the oil shows even further proof that the writers were not trying to keep women out of the picture.
Mainly because the act of perparation for His death was done after the manner of certain sacrifices done only by the priests. This woman looks as
though she is taking it upon herself to carry out a function done only by the priests with oil on the head, hands and feet. As it was the priest would
never have prepared Christ in this fashion, Christ the healer of leporcy, the taker of the leporcy had to be prepared per the law as both High Priest
and sacrifice in one. This was important to Christ as one writer made a note that Christ told two lepors to go show themeselves to the priest and make
offering according to the law about this. This would not have been included had there been an effort to keep women in a certain cultural frame of mind
15“Then the priest will pour some of the olive oil into the palm of his own left hand. 16He will dip his right finger into the oil in his palm
and sprinkle some of it with his finger seven times before the LORD. 17The priest will then apply some of the oil in his palm over the blood from the
guilt offering that is on the lobe of the right ear, the thumb of the right hand, and the big toe of the right foot of the person being purified.
18The priest will apply the oil remaining in his hand to the head of the person being purified. Through this process, the priest will purify the
person before the LORD. Leviticus 14
Most of the attention on this area of scripture goes to Judas and his comments about selling the oil and giving the money to the poor. As it so
happens the area of Leviticus were this is taken has to do with poor people being able to bring a price for the purifiction. The comments of Judas
have not been seen in this light i.e. that he in fact missed the whole picture and only a note about Judas being greedy is made. Christ went on to say
that they should remember what this women did here were ever you preach the gosple. Why would the writer record this if he were trying to keep women
in thier historical context? As it is this area of scripture is used to extract large sums form the faithfull and yet like Judas missing the point
I would go on to say that this Magdalene thing is a case of rising Isis, the sacred feminine, disjointed beyond measure. The poor thing pleading for
sympathies as she languishes for her dead lover, a necromancer pining away and central figure of her cult of the dead.
edit on 30-3-2013 by Logarock because: n