--- In [email protected], "Robert Gimbel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "Robert Gimbel" <babajii_99@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" > <shempmcgurk@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "qntmpkt" <qntmpkt@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > ---Yea...Swami Muktananda - it appears from available > > > > > evidence > > > > > that he was quite adept at molesting underage Daughters of > > > > > his > > > > > disciples. > > > > > > > > And Bill Clinton brutally raped Juanita Broderick. > > > > > > > > So what? Whether it's true or untrue regarding what Clinton > > > > or > > > > Muktananda or Maharishi did, we won't know for sure until said > > > > gentlemen are brought to trial for these alleged crimes > > > > (assuming > > > > they are still alive). > > > > > > > > In the meantime we can take the positive stuff they said and > > > > did and dwell on that. > > > > > > Yes, and even Jesus now gets accused of all kinds of stuff > > > regarding Mary Magdalene- there's just now end to this kind > > > of gossipy thingy. > > > > Uh, with all due respect, the only thing Jesus > > has ever been "accused of," and in some of the > > Gospels excised from the Bible, no less, was > > that he was *married* to Mary Magdalene. Which, > > of course, would have been perfectly acceptable > > for a rabbi. > > > > One should be careful not to project one's modern > > hangups about sex onto a period of history in > > which they are inappropriate. > > > > As far as I can tell, the myth of Jesus' celibacy > > was made up long after his death by uptight men > > to justify their own inability to relate to half > > of the human race. > > Yeah, but, Ms. Magdalene was considered to be a whore, > and I'm not sure that anyone would respect a Rabbi who > married a whore.
Robert, again no disrespect intended, but you should get a few books on the Bible and "read up" before you spout off. There is not ONE WORD in the Bible that characterizes Mary Magdalene as a whore. Not one. There is even less in the other Gospels that were carefully excised from the Bible. In ALL of them she is characterized as a woman of high character, on whom Jesus bestowed a great deal of attention. She is often portrayed as his favorite, the one to whom he gave certain teachings FIRST. The crap about her being a "whore" was added *centuries* later, by woman-hating Paulists who were looking for yet another excuse to put down women and portray them as less evolved than a man. As for his marriage to Magdalene, that is not stated overtly in even the excised Gospels, but can be inferred because he acted *publicly* towards her in a manner that would have been considered *inappropriate* at the time for a rabbi who was not married to the woman he was diaplaying this behavior with, but that would have been perfectly appropriate if he had been married to her. Which...again...would have been not only appropriate for a rabbi of the period, but expected of him. It would have been more unusual and inappropriate for a rabbi to remain *unmarried* than it would have for one to be married. I'm not ragging on you...you're just repeating lies that have been carefully introduced into the Catholic dogma for centuries, as if they were true. But, as far as scholars can tell, they are not. There is a *strong* case to be made for Jesus being a *normal* rabbi of his times, and being married, and an even stronger case to be made for the person he was married to being Mary of Magdala. > You remember that in that period of history, her fate > would have been death, if Jesus had not intervened. Possibly true, if it applied to Magdalene. It doesn't. She wasn't the woman in the Bible whom Jesus saved from stoning. Later misogynist priests of the Catholic Church promoted the idea that the two women were the same, again, in an attempt to put down women and characterize them as "fallen" and "not worthy." > Much like the women of Islam who would suffer the same > fate, in this period of history, if anyone of > them committed the same 'crime'. Again, true, but again, irrelevant. We're talking about the stories of the Bible. You will be unable to find any such stories characterizing Magdalene *IN* the Bible. They were all made up much later and added to the dogma of the Church. They are NOT present in the Bible itself. Are we clear now?
