5 ms·

> It does when those books were purposely excluded because the author was female. It also matters a lot when one of the books excluded was written by the person

> It does when those books were purposely excluded because the author was female. It also matters a lot when one of the books excluded was written by the person who was actually closest to Jesus too. Which book was this? How do we know about it, and have you read it?

laumars 5y ago
Background as to why Mary Magdalenes account is so important when discussing Jesus and the New Testament. Also shows the tension and resentment some apparently had towards her. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Magdalene https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Magdalene Gospel of Mary Magdalene is a book that is believed to be an account of her albeit not directly written by her. Though it should be noted that there are some disagreements about whether other books from the New Testament were actually written by their respective disciples either. https://www.compellingtruth.org/gospel-of-Mary-Magdalene.html https://www.compellingtruth.org/gospel-of-Mary-Magdalene.htm... This last link helps illustrate how the Bible is collated by man to fit a narrative defined by man. What isn’t explained in that article though is how religion was used to control a populous, often even used as a legal system. Which should cast scepticism about the motives behind the various rewrites and decisions behind what gets included and what doesn’t. https://www.compellingtruth.org/lost-books-Bible.html https://www.compellingtruth.org/lost-books-Bible.html
- orange8 5y ago
  > Also shows the tension and resentment some apparently had towards her. This is life. There will always be tensions, envy, politics and resentment whenever people come together, regardless of gender. Jesus was betrayed by one of his very own disciples after-all. So you say you've read the whole bible, but have you read the gospel of Mary Magdalene which you consider would "redeem" the bible by? Why, haven't you read it? > Gospel of Mary Magdalene is a book that is believed to be an account of her albeit not directly written by her. There are many books in the bible that give a females account. You should know about them as someone who's read the whole book (an impressive feat). And what do you think of the many other books omitted from the bible, for example the gospel of Thomas? Is it because it was written by a man? > This last link helps illustrate how the Bible is collated by man to fit a narrative defined by man. Is there really anything in this world that is written and collated that does not fit a narrative defined by their authors? > Which should cast scepticism about the motives behind the various rewrites and decisions behind what gets included and what doesn’t. The changes have been greatly exaggarated: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ5cgQUJnrI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ5cgQUJnrI
  - laumars 5y ago
    > This is life. There will always be tensions, envy, politics and resentment whenever people come together, regardless of gender. Jesus was betrayed by one of his very own disciples after-all. Clearly. But that’s an irrelevant truism when the point is that the accounts of the individual who was most familiar with Jesus’s teachings wasn’t included. Honestly, the reason they weren’t included isn’t even relevant when the point is about the authenticity of the book. I just bought them into the conversation to add some context for those who might not have been aware. > So you say you've read the whole bible, but have you read the gospel of Mary Magdalene which you consider would "redeem" the bible by? Why, haven't you read it? I have read it. > There are many books in the bible that give a females account. You should know about them as someone who's read the whole book (an impressive feat). It’s not that impressive of a feat. > And what do you think of the many other books omitted from the bible, for example the gospel of Thomas? Is it because it was written by a man? I’d already answered that question. > Is there really anything in this world that is written and collated that does not fit a narrative defined by their authors? My point is that those collating it are not the authors. Ie the narrative is defined by doctrine centuries after the original authors. This, in my opinion, compromises the authenticity of the book. You seem to disagree though, which is fine.
    - orange8 5y ago
      If you have read the gospel of Mary, why don't you tell us more about your take on in? How does it differ from the other male written accounts? What in your opinion makes it more authentic? What does it talk about that the others don't? Please give us something more details that the generic "not authentic" refrain. > It’s not that impressive of a feat. Indeed. If you don't remember the books in the bible that give a females account despite saying that's what the bible lacks, then reading the whole book isn't that impressive at all. It's also really interesting how you said that it is "harder to grok than Shakespeare", then turn around and say that reading the whole book isn't that impressive anyways .. > My point is that those collating it are not the authors. There is actually a whole profession that revolves around modifying the work of the original author. They are called "book editors". If I want to hear someones pure, pristine, unedited account, I'll have a face to face conversation with them. Not read their books.

laumars 5y ago

Background as to why Mary Magdalenes account is so important when discussing Jesus and the New Testament. Also shows the tension and resentment some apparently had towards her. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Magdalene https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Magdalene Gospel of Mary Magdalene is a book that is believed to be an account of her albeit not directly written by her. Though it should be noted that there are some disagreements about whether other books from the New Testament were actually written by their respective disciples either. https://www.compellingtruth.org/gospel-of-Mary-Magdalene.html https://www.compellingtruth.org/gospel-of-Mary-Magdalene.htm... This last link helps illustrate how the Bible is collated by man to fit a narrative defined by man. What isn’t explained in that article though is how religion was used to control a populous, often even used as a legal system. Which should cast scepticism about the motives behind the various rewrites and decisions behind what gets included and what doesn’t. https://www.compellingtruth.org/lost-books-Bible.html https://www.compellingtruth.org/lost-books-Bible.html

orange8 5y ago
> Also shows the tension and resentment some apparently had towards her. This is life. There will always be tensions, envy, politics and resentment whenever people come together, regardless of gender. Jesus was betrayed by one of his very own disciples after-all. So you say you've read the whole bible, but have you read the gospel of Mary Magdalene which you consider would "redeem" the bible by? Why, haven't you read it? > Gospel of Mary Magdalene is a book that is believed to be an account of her albeit not directly written by her. There are many books in the bible that give a females account. You should know about them as someone who's read the whole book (an impressive feat). And what do you think of the many other books omitted from the bible, for example the gospel of Thomas? Is it because it was written by a man? > This last link helps illustrate how the Bible is collated by man to fit a narrative defined by man. Is there really anything in this world that is written and collated that does not fit a narrative defined by their authors? > Which should cast scepticism about the motives behind the various rewrites and decisions behind what gets included and what doesn’t. The changes have been greatly exaggarated: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ5cgQUJnrI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ5cgQUJnrI
- laumars 5y ago
  > This is life. There will always be tensions, envy, politics and resentment whenever people come together, regardless of gender. Jesus was betrayed by one of his very own disciples after-all. Clearly. But that’s an irrelevant truism when the point is that the accounts of the individual who was most familiar with Jesus’s teachings wasn’t included. Honestly, the reason they weren’t included isn’t even relevant when the point is about the authenticity of the book. I just bought them into the conversation to add some context for those who might not have been aware. > So you say you've read the whole bible, but have you read the gospel of Mary Magdalene which you consider would "redeem" the bible by? Why, haven't you read it? I have read it. > There are many books in the bible that give a females account. You should know about them as someone who's read the whole book (an impressive feat). It’s not that impressive of a feat. > And what do you think of the many other books omitted from the bible, for example the gospel of Thomas? Is it because it was written by a man? I’d already answered that question. > Is there really anything in this world that is written and collated that does not fit a narrative defined by their authors? My point is that those collating it are not the authors. Ie the narrative is defined by doctrine centuries after the original authors. This, in my opinion, compromises the authenticity of the book. You seem to disagree though, which is fine.
  - orange8 5y ago
    If you have read the gospel of Mary, why don't you tell us more about your take on in? How does it differ from the other male written accounts? What in your opinion makes it more authentic? What does it talk about that the others don't? Please give us something more details that the generic "not authentic" refrain. > It’s not that impressive of a feat. Indeed. If you don't remember the books in the bible that give a females account despite saying that's what the bible lacks, then reading the whole book isn't that impressive at all. It's also really interesting how you said that it is "harder to grok than Shakespeare", then turn around and say that reading the whole book isn't that impressive anyways .. > My point is that those collating it are not the authors. There is actually a whole profession that revolves around modifying the work of the original author. They are called "book editors". If I want to hear someones pure, pristine, unedited account, I'll have a face to face conversation with them. Not read their books.