4 ms·

> Also shows the tension and resentment some apparently had towards her. This is life. There will always be tensions, envy, politics and resentment whenever pe

> 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
    > 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. Given the conversation that lead up to this point, I’m going to respectfully decline this offer because I’m not really in the mood to risk another argument on another topic. > If you don't remember the books in the bible that give a females account despite saying that's what the bible lacks I didn’t say the Bible lacked any female accounts. I said it lacks specific accounts from specific people who, in my opinion, absolutely should have been in there. > 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 .. Reading Shakespeare isn’t all that impressive either. And yes, I did say the Bible is harder to grok than Shakespeare. But that doesn’t mean completing either is a spectacular achievement. I’ve got to say, I’m not loving the sub-text you keep deriving from my comments given you’ve been wildly off on pretty much every assumption. > There is actually a whole profession that revolves around modifying the work of the original author. They are called "book editors". Book editors generally work in conjunction with the author but at least we are now on topic. :) I take it from that is that you don’t see an issue with reading a reinterpretation that happened without the authors input? Weirdly I enjoy that sort of thing in music but dislike it in literature. Which probably doesn’t make much sense but you like what you like. > If I want to hear someones pure, pristine, unedited account, I'll have a face to face conversation with them. Not read their books. Unfortunately Mary and Jesus aren’t around to converse with but I do take your point. Putting aside questions about the truth behind Bible specifically, can I assume from your comment that you view non-fiction works as a dramatisation too?

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
  > 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. Given the conversation that lead up to this point, I’m going to respectfully decline this offer because I’m not really in the mood to risk another argument on another topic. > If you don't remember the books in the bible that give a females account despite saying that's what the bible lacks I didn’t say the Bible lacked any female accounts. I said it lacks specific accounts from specific people who, in my opinion, absolutely should have been in there. > 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 .. Reading Shakespeare isn’t all that impressive either. And yes, I did say the Bible is harder to grok than Shakespeare. But that doesn’t mean completing either is a spectacular achievement. I’ve got to say, I’m not loving the sub-text you keep deriving from my comments given you’ve been wildly off on pretty much every assumption. > There is actually a whole profession that revolves around modifying the work of the original author. They are called "book editors". Book editors generally work in conjunction with the author but at least we are now on topic. :) I take it from that is that you don’t see an issue with reading a reinterpretation that happened without the authors input? Weirdly I enjoy that sort of thing in music but dislike it in literature. Which probably doesn’t make much sense but you like what you like. > If I want to hear someones pure, pristine, unedited account, I'll have a face to face conversation with them. Not read their books. Unfortunately Mary and Jesus aren’t around to converse with but I do take your point. Putting aside questions about the truth behind Bible specifically, can I assume from your comment that you view non-fiction works as a dramatisation too?