Skip to main content

With MBM's thought provoking topic on Prostitution in the issues section, I thought this might be an interesting topic for the sistas (and sista spot supporters) to ponder. Perhaps it fits under the religion section too? To be honest, I was more than mildly irritated that the brothas in that topic could treat legalizing prostitution so cavalierly (in my perspective).

Lo and behold, today I happened upon a Discovery Channel show about whether or not Mary Magdalene was wrongly viewed as a prostitute when she could have been an apostle. Speakers on the show asserted that mary was a common name during Jesus's time so perhaps men translating the bible centuries confused mary the disciple with mary the footwashing prostitute? Or is it possible that translators and bible scholars did'nt approve of female church leadership so they rendered Mary Magdalene, who was a community leader, a jesus follower, and an equal contemporary of the disciples, a prostitute. Speakers on the show voiced that Mary Magdalene, as a redeemed prostitute, has been made acceptable b/c she represents the principle of redemption, forgiveness, starting anew, etc (basics of christianity). Others say that making Mary into a prostitute and deleting the book of Mary from the Nag Hamadi texts is a prime example of the centuries old male tendency to "put a woman in her place" by attacking her sexuality. It also had the effect of removing females as figures of power in the new testament, and the church.

What are your thoughts? Is Mary Magdalene accurately depicted as a prostitute? Or should we consider her a disciple?

*disclaimer* Although some will debate the actual existence of Mary Magdalene, that is not the intent of this post. The issue of female discipleship,and its implications for the christian faith, is a compelling one. All views are welcome

[This message was edited by negrospiritual on October 05, 2003 at 06:51 PM.]

Everybody can be great... because anybody can serve. You don't have to have a college degree to serve. You don't have to make your subject and verb agree to serve. You only need a heart full of grace. A soul generated by love.  


Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Who could possibly ever know for sure. I have read that Joseph was already married and that Mary was his mistress. But if you look at how things were that many centuries ago and where it all took place; men could have several wives. I think that it is quite possible that Mary's relationship with Joseph was not within a religous or cuturally sanctioned marriage and that their fleeing may very well have been to save her life - the Nigerian woman just aquitted from a sentence of being stoned to death for becoming pregnant out of wedlock is a good example of what would probably happen to a woman in that position centuries ago. The Virgin birth could be the historians' way of making Mary acceptable and the birth of Jesus acceptable in order that people would not automatically dismiss Jesus's message. Also, as far as being a prostitute, back then up until recent decades (even in this country), a woman could be labeled a whore, prostitute, or many other things for deviating even a little from "being in her place." So, even if there is evidence that Mary was actually considerd a prostitute, during that time, she may have obtained that label for something as simple as being seen talking to a man she was not married to. And as far as any book of Mary being deleted/left out of religous text (bible), I am sure that is the case and for the reasons you stated (along with, I believe at least 7 other books). All of this and all of what you state is one main reason I have a problem with organized religon, the bible, and other major organized religions. I find it hard to believe in a God that sees men superior to women or any one group superior to any other. Most religous books that people rely on today were written (or re-written) in monostaries by men who had no relationship with women; only with other men. However, these are the human beings that wrote what is supposed to be beleived as God's word as to how to view and treat women, what marriage is supposed to be and the general guidelines for the relationships between men and women. The bible has been white-washed since the crusades to fit the ruling power's culture into the religous philosophy or vice versa(sexism, racism, classism, justification for oppression and war.
Sista Sunn posted...

"And as far as any book of Mary being deleted/left out of religous text (bible), I am sure that is the case and for the reasons you stated (along with, I believe at least 7 other books). All of this and all of what you state is one main reason I have a problem with organized religon, the bible, and other major organized religions. I find it hard to believe in a God that sees men superior to women or any one group superior to any other. Most religous books that people rely on today were written (or re-written) in monostaries by men who had no relationship with women; only with other men."


thanks for your thoughts on the topic Sunnubian. I too have a problem with this perspective of God/Religion, however, the church has often been the center of the black community. Makes me wonder if the civil rights movement would have been different without this bias in christianity...then again churches are mainly packed with sistas nowadays anyway.
Love this topic! Have been editing work on the same truth with regard to this FEMALE APOSTLE of Yeshua Hamashiach the Black Messiah. Mary Magdala is another black woman of Semitic/Khemetic origin whose ethnicity as well as true relationship with Yeshua is a part of the BLACK WOMAN LIBERATION HOUR!

Not only Mary Magdala but Mary of Bethany and the woman at the well, as well as the many women in Yeshua's ministry were purposely defamed by ill-bred, racist, sexist, males. This is a proven fact.

What made Yeshua's ministry outstanding in the stiffling, oppressive, patriarchal world unto which he was born, was that he did have women in his ministry. History tells us that women were not so much as allowed out of the house, or allowed to walk on the same side of the street with males, but then entered, 'HE, YESHUA THE WOMAN LIBERATOR' and this is why the new testaments repeatedly speak of the women at his sermons, (another unheard of), women the administrators of his ministry, still another unheard of. Repeatedly, women, and mind you, these are BLACK SEMITIC/KHEMETIC WOMEN were everywhere as Christ came as liberator to restore WOMANKIND back to the JOINT RULER of the EARTH as was the command (Genesis 1:26-28; 5:2). Mind you, the original 'RULE' was solely over the earth and the inhabitants thereof. Adam/man was never given authority to RULE OVER THE WOMAN.

According to the Bible's account, the 'rule' factor came in as a consequence of the fall. The 'he shall have his rule over you' Scripture was tampered with by males to insinuate God meant it that way (Genesis 3:12). When in reality, God was simply warning the woman what one of the UN-NATURAL consequences of the fall would be, meaning, the male would take ILLEGAL RULE OVER THE WOMAN AND ALL HELL WOULD AND DID BREAK LOOSE ALL OVER THE EARTH AND REMAINS THAT WAY TO THIS DAY. I fervently believe God cried when he said it.

At any rate, the bottom line is this, Mary and every other woman has been vilified by sick, twisted, effeminate, racist white males with an attitude and that's why Mary Magdala was painted as a prostitute by these shameless, male prostitutes feigning their mad lies and deceits to be the will of God.

So yeah, Mary Magdala was a priestess, apostle, and thank the Divine that truth crushed to the ground is rising again. It's just another sign that verifies the black woman's exaltation hour to be upon us.

My Motto?! You may ask. Well here's it in a nutshell, I believe in LOVE/HAPPINESS for all righteous souls. I believe you 'love' 'TRUTH/GOD' so much that you put it out there full force, un-restrained, and in so doing, you bring 'HAPPINESS'....wink!
Hi Prophetess! (i like your name)

Did you say you were editing work on the same subject? WoW! you're a writer? Kool!

Thanks for adding the context about women being rarely allowed out of the home at that time. It does bring into stark relief those women who were his followers. Those who were visibly following Jesus, had to be extroadinary.

sista Prophetess, I notice both you and sista Sunn, have pointed out that bible translators were often white males who had little contact with women...I'm wondering what effect this has had on the roles of nonwhite peoples as christianity spread?

WELCOME to SISTASPOT!!!! brosmile
I think that the Bible is much older than "Christainity" and since the white man had to initially be introduced to the Bible and women have been oppressed since before then, I believe that is is not only a white male only ideology, but a predominately male ideology initially created by lone males such as the ones mentioned in previous post, which spread through the world; spread much in the same way as you see how racism became an idealogy after a small group of human beings (men) decided this or that about anyone Black and that anyone Black should not be allowed or should be only allowed, how Blacks should be treated and how Black should not be treated; look how few men decided on all this initially and far it spread afterwards and for how long it has lasted and most importantly, look how many Blacks have in the past until present times actually gone along with the oppression - and how many have actually helped the oppressor oppress them (i.e., Ward Connerly type who name is in many posts here). Women by accepting the relegated role of the female, only helps the oppression of women; women who participate in female labeling of women, who raise little girls to accept second class status, women who do not stand for what is right for all women in general or specifically regardless of class, race, socio-economic level, --all are feminine oppression enablers (i.e., female house niggers; remember that in the past it was not only Blacks, but every minority here now that has been relegated to just that at one time or another). It is no difference. If a person consciously works with their oppressor to enable the oppressor to hurt and oppress thoses like them, then that makes that person a house nigger, pure and simple regardless of the particulars, therefore, I say that there are female house-niggers, Black house-niggers hispanic house-niggers, white house-niggers, asian house-niggers, poor house-niggers. . .
Racism and Sexism are twins of the same mother -or should I say of the same father.
No oppression in this world could exist without the oppressor being helped by those he choses to oppress.
Hi Negrospiritual sorry about the delay in getting back to your question. You asked:"sista Prophetess, I notice both you and sista Sunn, have pointed out that bible translators were often white males who had little contact with women...I'm wondering what effect this has had on the roles of nonwhite peoples as christianity spread?"

This has had a tremendously negative effect on non white peoples. The euro's version of so-called Christianity was/is in reality, 'patriarchy satanism' or what the Bible would call the 'false church.' Not only did they breed sexism but racism. Of course, we all know of the death, destruction wrought because of those 2 Caucasoid birth, bred, sustained, perpetuated evils. That in itself, is the major effect it all has had on non white peoples.

The lies, deceits, stripped blacks of our literal God-given Khemetic heritage. For women, it stripped women of self-esteem and made all women despise our femininity and our thinking processes in as much as it bred women to foolishly fawn over a male as 'all-knowing, godly leader' when nothing, absolutely nothing, do you hear me, NOTHING, could be further from the truth.

These are just a couple of the major evils that affected non white peoples.

My Motto?! You may ask. Well here's it in a nutshell, I believe in LOVE/HAPPINESS for all righteous souls. I believe you 'love' 'TRUTH/GOD' so much that you put it out there full force, un-restrained, and in so doing, you bring 'HAPPINESS'....wink!
I'm not sure that it was the translators' fault. We have very old manuscripts of the Bible, and there is no evidence at all that the translators changed anything in the Bible to reflect a patriarchal worldview.

And as for the roles of women, it depends on where we go in the ancient world, for roles changed from place to place. In prechristian Athens, women often had no role, but sometimes they did. In ancient Ireland, after Christianity entered, women sometimes had leadership roles--there's at least one frieze that I saw that has a woman holding a bishop's crozier. Now and then a Christian-influenced nation had a queen as leader. Paul the apostle sometimes speaks to women in his letters as though they were leaders in a church, and certainly the roles of husbands and wives are different but equal in the Bible. Women are indeed told to "submit" to their husbands, but husbands are told to "love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her." That is a life-changing command, for it means that he has no business living for himself, for his own good. His wife is to be his first thought, her welfare to be his every reason. All that he does is to be for her good and happiness. And it seems to me that a woman would have little if any trouble "submitting" to a man like that.

Where's the patriarchy in this?

The problem has been interpreters of the Bible, not the translators. But interpreters are routinely disagreed with--I suspect that some here do that on a regular basis--and often with good reason. But not always, and some here I think do not always have good reason for disagreeing with many of them.

But we'll probably have some discussion on that issue.
Hi Melesi, yes the 'translators' did purposely DISTORT the Bible to teach SEXIST as well as RACIST evil and this is why women are oppressed under the banner of the 'religions' calling themselves Christians. There's just too much evidence out there to refute the blatant patriarchy evil.

Modern day white religions all have their origin from the Bishops who gathered at the various councils to decide what white males and their colored proselytes mentality and will for 'women' Christians would be. Here is a quote:"the Bishops at the sixth century Council of Macon voted as to whether women had souls.

Women:You are the Devil's Gateway

The witch hunts were an eruption of orthodox Christianity's vilification of women, "the weaker vessel," in St. Peter's words. The second century St. Clement of Alexandria wrote: "Every woman should be filled with shame by the thought that she is a woman." The Church father Tertullian explained why women deserve their status as despised and inferior human beings:

And do you not know that you are an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil's gateway: you are the unsealer of that tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God's image, man. On account of your desert that is, death even the Son of God had to die."

http://www.geocities.com/jywanza1/Devilsgateway.html

As for the Bible itself, it was King James the effeminate, pedophile, pervert who ordered all references to 'blacks' to be omitted, distorted, or downplayed, whereas all reference to women 'servitude' to be emulated and taught.

Hence, Romans 16:1 refers to the woman PHOEBE as 'servant' when in reality the Greek word for 'servant' was 'preacher.' Now couple that with highlighting Paul's admonishment to church protocol and the woman's place and you will see a distortion of the worst sort taught and bred by males.

For instance, Paul did use the word 'submit' but the Greek definition of that is RESPECT it was just written 'SUBMIT' to breed servitude and compliance upon women. Unfortunately, it worked. This is one of the ways Paul's words seemingly diminish the woman, when careful examination finds that that is not how that part was meant to be taught.

Well, those are just the basic slip ups that contradicts your erroneous belief. I do hope you will become enlightened with the truth.

Oh, let me say this, as I originally wrote, the relationship of male/female is EQUALITY WITH MUTUAL RESPECT. Feminity and Masculinity ruling side by side each with their own function. As a matter of fact, the Bible says, God had to warn the male to recognize his 'helper or aider' as just as equal whereas there is no admonishment to the woman (Genesis 2:23-24). What we see, is God recognizning man capable of being all about the 'Great Me' when in reality the woman is the greater in that she is the NEEDED HELP and LIFE-GIVER. Yet, all things being fair, EQUALITY RESPECTING ONE ANOTHER IS THE ORIGINAL DESIGN BY GOD (Genesis 1:26-28).

Well, I'll leave it at that for now.

My Motto?! You may ask. Well here's it in a nutshell, I believe in LOVE/HAPPINESS for all righteous souls. I believe you 'love' 'TRUTH/GOD' so much that you put it out there full force, un-restrained, and in so doing, you bring 'HAPPINESS'....wink!
OK, where did the translators do that? What was it they mistranslated in order to achieve that aim?

Well, as I said, it was the interpreters who got it wrong. All the quotes that you gave are from interpreters, not translators. Wew are free to disagree with them, and people did, even back then. There is no ecclesiastical council that was not prompted by an argument of some sort.

and not all councils were authoritative. The council that you mentioned--the council of Macon in the sixth century--is unfamiliar to me. It was not one of the ecumenical councils, and thus is of little importance in the church, for it is not authoritative. Not because I don' tknow about it, but because it isn't ecumenical. There is only one sixth-century ecumenical council, and that was the Council of Constantinople in 553.

Without knowing much about it, we really can't say anything one way or another. It could be merely a minor council that arrived at a good conclusion. I notice that you say what it argued but not what it decided.

The witch hunts were a shame, but not because of the vilification of women. It was becasue of the culture--there were no witch hunts before the late Middle Ages, which means that there was Christianity for some 1400 years before tehre were witch hunts. The problem lay not in the religion but in the cultural influence of the secular world on it. The Church was to blame for letting the culture influence it so much, but witch hunts were inherent in Christianity.

Peter talking about women as the "weaker vessel" told men to be careful with and for their wives. That's a far cry from accusing all women as bad.

The Bible does not blame Eve for the sin in the Garden. Everywhere it is called the "sin of Adam." Again you are finding the culture to blame but blaming the Bible.

And so you do with all the quotes.

King James had virtually nothing to do with the translation of the Bible, and his pedophilia was badly overstated. He had a favorite courtier or two who aroused suspicions among the rest of a jealous court, but pedophilia? No.

The Greek for "servant" and "preacher" are two very different words. Will you show us the Greek words and how they are connected?

By the way, she is not called a "servant." She is called a "sister," an "adelphen," the usual word for sister. "Servant" does not appear in that verse (it is the word "doulos") nor does the word "preacher" (there were two words for this--neither one is here). Adn teh church to whom Paul is writing is commanded to give her whatever ehlp she needs and to receive her as a representative of himself. He has said the same thing about a couple of men, too.

Your understanding of Ephesians 5 is a little lacking. The word that Paul uses is "upotassitai," the usual word for "submit," and he uses it right after he says to the whole church "Submit to one another." So he's saying that submission is the usual attitude among all believers, not just women. That's the point of his words to men to love their wives as Christ loved the church.

Gotta go. Out of time. Back later.
negrospiritual,

It seems clear to me that Mary Magdalene was a disciple. Not only a disciple, but an important one, not perhaps in a way that the other disciples would understand--there were many things that they did not understand during Jesus' life--but one who stands as an example of what should happen in a life when Christ forgives us. She obviously followed Jesus, and being one of the first at his tomb held Jesus in such respect and love that whatever we feel for him often is weak and pale by comparison.

The reason that some people have identified her as a prostitute is because Mary was such a common name that there were possibly three Marys in Jesus' life that we know of, and just who these were is a question that the natural curiosity of the human will ask. Some have tried to see all three as one woman, some as two, but others see three. I subscribe to the last view. His mother, Mary the sister of Martha, and Mary Magdalene were all involved in his life and ministry somehow. All we're really told about Mary of Magdala is that she had seven devils cast out of her. There's not a hint of culpability on her part in that description, and the other women do not seem to have anything against her, so the thought that she was a prostitute is a conjecture on very little evidence. We simply do not know that that's what she was, whereas we are much more sure that she was a disciple. It is true that her actions are those of a disciple and not of a prostitute.

The Church in general historically has held to this view, too. She is considered a saint in the Catholic Church, and a prayer to her is written by Saint Anselm (who died in 1109). Since I'm not a Catholic I do not go quite this far, but I agree with the sentiment and say that she is worthy of respect and gratitude for the life that she lived.

That the book bearing her name was not accepted by the Church should not be taken as a sign of animus toward women or a blow against her sexuality. After all, the Hebrew Bible contains the Book of Esther and the Book of Ruth, so it isn't without precendence that a woman should figure prominently in a Biblical book.

The problem was one of theology. The Book of Mary is obviously eccentric in its Christology, appealing to some Gnostics but not to orthodox Christians. The fact that Mary saw Jesus in a vision, that there are in the world "powers" that need to be overcome by the soul, that the soul "talks" to powers in ways that the mind can not, all are indications that the Gospel of Mary was written late and by Gnostics. Gnostics were a loose and diverse set of groups of worshippers who followed an odd series of beliefs that were as much Neoplatonic as Christian. The "powers" or "gods" of the world that the "soul" had to fight to get into heaven varied from five to nine, usually settling on the number of known planets, and the rituals and "spiritual" abilities that they gained from their knowledge as they advanced in their religion helped them to fight the "wraths" of the world ranged against them. It was far different from the call to a relationship with God through Jesus, and to a life surrendered to his will and lived in his power.

The Book of Mary was part of this world, and that is why the Book of Mary was rejected as canonical, not because of some hatred of her "sexuality" or something. Many books were rejected for the same reason, most of them written by men. It had nothing to do with her being a woman or a prostitute.
MELESI YOU STATED:"OK, where did the translators do that? What was it they mistranslated in order to achieve that aim?"

MY REPLYBig Grino what? I gave you a couple of Scriptures where the very word was taken out of context. Phoebe as 'servant' meant 'preacher.'


YOU STATED:"Well, as I said, it was the interpreters who got it wrong. All the quotes that you gave are from interpreters, not translators. Wew are free to disagree with them, and people did, even back then. There is no ecclesiastical council that was not prompted by an argument of some sort."

MY REPLY:Listen Melesi it's nice that you have a some knowledgeable information but you're totally off base. Let me say this, don't blind yourself to TRUTH as the 'letter killeth, the spirit giveth life.' What I mean is learning of the facts entails recognizing TRUTH. The fact is, SEXISM EXISTS. The fact is, it EXISTS IN THE RELIGION WORLD OF WHITES SO-CALLED CHRISTIANITY AND THEIR PROSELYTES.

Women didn't get the vote until 1920. Women couldn't wear make-up, pants, and a host of other things. This is really ridiculous that I would have to spell out to you SEXISM as it is here, been here, and was brought here by false religious factions of white males and everyone was force to adhere to it. Now, there's no argument there, so I don't get your point in stating 'what might've been.' What is, is a result of what was, SEXISM WORLDWIDE AND THAT CONDONED BY THE RELIGION OF CHRISTIANITY AND EVERY OTHER MAJOR RELIGION.

YOU STATED:"and not all councils were authoritative. The council that you mentioned--the council of Macon in the sixth century--is unfamiliar to me. It was not one of the ecumenical councils, and thus is of little importance in the church, for it is not authoritative. Not because I don' tknow about it, but because it isn't ecumenical. There is only one sixth-century ecumenical council, and that was the Council of Constantinople in 553."

MY REPLY:Excuse me?! It is indicative of the MINDSET THAT EXALTED THE SEXISM THAT WOMEN WERE FORCE TO ADHERE TO...it was WOMEN who arose and CHANGED ALL OF THAT....the males are still teaching the lies and deceits.

YOU STATED:"Without knowing much about it, we really can't say anything one way or another. It could be merely a minor council that arrived at a good conclusion. I notice that you say what it argued but not what it decided."

MY REPLY:Women could not own property it went to the husband. Women could not do a myriad of things and that at the command of the so-called church.

YOU STATED:"The witch hunts were a shame, but not because of the vilification of women. It was becasue of the culture--there were no witch hunts before the late Middle Ages, which means that there was Christianity for some 1400 years before tehre were witch hunts. The problem lay not in the religion but in the cultural influence of the secular world on it. The Church was to blame for letting the culture influence it so much, but witch hunts were inherent in Christianity."

MY REPLY:What?! I don't believe you wrote that. The culture was based on the teachings or MISINTERPRETATIONS OF THE WHITE SO-CALLED CHURCH. EVERYBODY UNDER IT'S DOMAIN YIELDED TO IT AS THAT WAS WHAT FLOURISHED IN THE HOUR.

YOU STATED:"Peter talking about women as the "weaker vessel" told men to be careful with and for their wives. That's a far cry from accusing all women as bad."

MY REPLY:Actually the greek word for 'weaker' is 'PRECIOUS' the more PRECIOUS VESSEL. Meaning the PERTINENT PART TO BE TREATED WITH UTMOST RESPECT, I MIGHT ADD!

YOU STATED:"The Bible does not blame Eve for the sin in the Garden. Everywhere it is called the "sin of Adam." Again you are finding the culture to blame but blaming the Bible."

MY REPLY:Listen in your zeal to make a point, you misinterpreted the whole matter. I never blamed the Bible, I blamed fallen male for the evil of distorting and purposely tampering with the information in the Bible. See you got it all wrong.

As for 'the sin of Adam' yes that is true, the Bible says REDEMPTION IS ALL ABOUT GOD AND THE WOMAN. Hence, women were first re-ordained to our CO RULE POSITION WHEN CHRIST GAVE MARY MAGDALA THE FIRST SERMON SO ORDAINING HER PREACHER.....(Matt. 28).

YOU STATED:"And so you do with all the quotes."

MY REPLY:"all my quotes?!" Big Grin Melesi I only gave a few quotes of the evil males spoke. That is fact. Regardless of what they are seeking to teach you WASN'T the churches fault the fact is, MALES DID DO THE EVIL IN ERECTING SEXISM...It sounds like you are trying to say, 'pin them down to the exact hour and prove they did it, when that's absurd.' The proof is seen in the ACTIONS...THE FACT IS, WHATEVER THE BIBLE MEANT FOR IT TO BE, IT WASN'T THEREFORE IT IS RELIGIOUS WHITE GUYS WHO ERECTED, SUSTAINED, PERPETUATED SEXISM.

I mean honestly, if the matter is, doing what the Bible says, then there would be no RACISM as the BIBLE DEFINITELY SAYS BLACK,BURNISHED, COPPER GOD WITH GLORIOUS LIGHTS ALL ABOUT HIM AND ALL YOU HAVE UP IS WHITE IMAGES PURPOSELY PUT UP TO CANCEL WHAT THE WORLD DID KNOW AS 'BLACK JESUS/VIRGIN MOTHER.'

YOU STATED:"King James had virtually nothing to do with the translation of the Bible, and his pedophilia was badly overstated. He had a favorite courtier or two who aroused suspicions among the rest of a jealous court, but pedophilia? No."

MY REPLY:Who told you that? White males? The fact is, the debauchery in the Catholic church consisted of incest, homosexuality, and every other depraved conduct by those depraved people.

YOU STATED:"The Greek for "servant" and "preacher" are two very different words. Will you show us the Greek words and how they are connected?"

MY REPLY:I'll do you one better, look in the Strong's Hebrew/Chaldee dictionary it's on the internet just look it up under Strong's Concordance and there you will find your missing words.

YOU STATED:"By the way, she is not called a "servant." She is called a "sister," an "adelphen," the usual word for sister. "Servant" does not appear in that verse (it is the word "doulos") nor does the word "preacher" (there were two words for this--neither one is here). Adn teh church to whom Paul is writing is commanded to give her whatever ehlp she needs and to receive her as a representative of himself. He has said the same thing about a couple of men, too."

MY REPLY:It is translated, 'SERVANT' in many Biblical translations, end of story, okay.... Smile

YOU STATED:"Your understanding of Ephesians 5 is a little lacking. The word that Paul uses is "upotassitai," the usual word for "submit," and he uses it right after he says to the whole church "Submit to one another." So he's saying that submission is the usual attitude among all believers, not just women. That's the point of his words to men to love their wives as Christ loved the church."

MY REPLY:Look up the word in the Greek and look up the definition in the Dictionary and it means 'RESPECT.' Yes, you are right the following submit is a different term and it does mean to 'show respect and unity with' one another of which as your knowledge must have taught you, THE WHITES NEEEEVER DID!

YOU STATED:"Gotta go. Out of time. Back later."

MY REPLY:Okay, it's been interesting.

My Motto?! You may ask. Well here's it in a nutshell, I believe in LOVE/HAPPINESS for all righteous souls. I believe you 'love' 'TRUTH/GOD' so much that you put it out there full force, un-restrained, and in so doing, you bring 'HAPPINESS'....wink!
Prophetess,

Um, no, "servant" does not mean "preacher." Servant is "doulos," preacher is "kerux." "doulos" is found in many places in the NT, "kerux" in fewer, but one place is 1 Timothy 2:7 "I am appointed a herald and apostle..." And at any rate, neither of these words appears in Paul's descrition of Phoebe, who is called "sister."

Now, we do not disagree on the issue of sexism existing. I never disputed that. What I am disputing is your flat accusation that the Church bears the blame for it. It does not. Human nature does. The Church did bow to that human nature, and far too many times, yes, but not in the way that you have stated. Interpreters of the Bibile did so strain the Scriptures that they made them look as though they upheld the sexist position, but the words of the Bible themselves were not tampered with to do so. We have far too many early manuscripts that show that the translations were not done so flagrantly as you allege. In fact, the translations were very good and precise.

I suspect that you do not read Greek. Therefore please be careful in what you say about it. Relying on a dictionary for meanings of words can often run you the wrong way. If you're going to complain so about Greek, you really should learn to read it and understand it first.

I notice that you do not explain the Council of Macon. Saying that it is "indicative of the mindset" does not explain anything except that you are not happy that they did not think as we do.

But you cannot demand that people of many centuries ago think as we do today. If they were to criticize you for not thinking as they did, you wouldn't find that a very convincing argument. Then neither is our demand that they be American moderns.

We do not really know how "bad" might have been their thinking until we know what their thinking was. Why did they vote on whether women had souls? What prompted their discussion or even their meeting? What was the result of their vote? What were their arguments pro and con? Until we know these, we cannot criticize them.

"Women could not own property." Well, sometimes they could. I think that you are speaking primarily of medieval Europe, right? Women owned much in Roman times, when the Bible was being written, so women not owning property was not the fault of the Bible. Rather it was the European interpreters. About them we are generally agreed, I think.

Medieval culture was based on many things. It was a turbulent time--as if most have not been--in which there was much superstition and war and disease and discovery and adapting to different cultures as they began to encounter one another. Witches were mainly a European phenomenon, for the witch-hunts started in Europe around 1437. So the Coptics then as well as the Byzantines, by your argument, could not have had mistranslations of the Bible to deal with since they did not have witch hunts. Yet they had exactly the same Bible as the Europeans did.

Do not forget that the Church was not the only power in the world at the time. There was also the crown, which had been gaining in power for some time by then and would continue to do so as the Church faded in importance and power.

I would say again that you should be very careful with your Greek. "weak" or "weaker" is the word "asthenios," meaning "weak" or "ill." "Precious," on the other hand, is "timio," a very different word. Peter uses both, but not as you say. He does not say that women are the "precious" vessel. He uses "weaker." That is not a mistranslation.

This is not, however, a teaching on the lack of worth of a woman. You've heard of the line that it's good to be a man because "We can open our own jars"? That's a small bit of humor that comes from the fact that women generally do not have the upper-body strength that men have. Because men are stronger than women, we have sometimes used that against you. That is the action and attitude of a bully and is completely wrong. What Peter is telling us is that women must be treated with care and respect because they are not as strong as we are. Don't think of yourselves as better just because you can lift more and you smell worse, Peter is saying. We must honor you.

But the word really is "weaker."

Well, you have a point about my getting your points about the Bible wrong. You are talking about white males. However, if the BIble is mistranslated, then the text of the Bible is wrong. What I'm saying is that that point that you are trying to make is not right. The text of the Bible is remarkably well preserved and faithfully transmitted. Whatever else white males did, they didn't tamper with the text of the Bible.

Well, redemption is not quite "all about God and the woman." Jesus had something to do with it, too, I hear.

But it is also "religious white guys" who stood with women as they began to tell the world that their position was intolerable. So it isn't all "religious white guys" who are the villians here. I think that you paint the canvas a little too starkly.

I really don't think that the Bible says that God is black. In fact, it doesn't describe him or Jesus at all. Very few people in the Bible are described.

It doesn't really matter "who told" me what King James was like. The point is, is it true? James had nothing whatever to do with the translating of the King James Bible. Even if he had, there were still other translations of the Bible around, and others came out after that. The KJV itself was revised to meet changing language standards more than once.

And one does not have to be sinless to be a good scholar. One does have to be serious about living for Christ to be a good Christian and a good priest, but not to be a good translator, so your comment about the debauchery in the Church, while largely true and a source of dispute and revolution--remember the Reformation?--is a change of subject (we were talking about King James) and irrelevant. Yes, many priests were bad, but Catholic priests didn't translate the King James Bible, and one's morality does not affect one's knowledge of Greek verbs in "mi."

Ah, I see where you went wrong in your statement about "servant" meaning "preacher." I looked up Strong's Concordance online. Be careful. Your dependence on Strong's must include watching the different Greek words that are translated by a single English word. What you see as several different meanings of "servant" really are a single translation of several different Greek words, all of which are just a little different. In some contexts they will have overlapping meanings, and sometimes they are used a bit poetically and outside their real meanings, but you will note at the beginning of each entry the Greek word is transliterated into English lettering for you. Watch those words, for they are different. Since there is no such thing as a perfect synonym, they all will have different meanings. You have to be able to read it to see this quickly.

I also see where I was wrong in this. Phoebe is called "sister," but she is also called a "deacon." Now, "deacon" does have overtones of "servant," though I don't think that I would have translated it that way. That's of little import, really--translators will always argue over the meanings of the words they use. But since she was a "deacon," I would have used "deacon" (a perfectly good English word for it), though a deacon was primarily one who cared for the poor in those days, still they had influence, too.

So my apologies for not giving you the whole story the first time. Phoebe was both "deacon" and "sister" to Paul.

But also remember that it is males who have acknowledged this truth. Not all of us in the Church are sexists.
negrospiritual,

Yes, I believe that that's right. She was also one of those at the cross when most of the others--all of them the men except for John--abandoned him.

Why do you ask?

Oh, did you hear the NPR report this morning about Stella Chiweshe from Zimbabwe and her playing the Mbira? She said that she had to overcome a great deal of sexism among her own people in order to be an mbira player. In fact, she had to marry a German to be free to play it, because the social order was so strict that she was repeatedly bombarded by demands that she do her "woman's work" (her term for it) and have children and work in the fields.

The interview is still on npr.org/programs/wesun/

Sexism is not the fault of the Church. It is a human condition that the Church has too often fallen prey to, but sexism did not arise in the Church. It arises in our hearts, and some sexists are not men. We are all infected with it.
Melesi...to quote you, 'uhm'...I think you are going to have to start back over cause you looking bad girl. Who are you to tell me what I have and have not read?! You're just some stranger whom I had suppose was rational enough to come on a black site and answer the question posed as that's what I did! And honey, if I rock your world so much that you 'picked me' and am 'touched by me' then get yourself some psychiatric help because you are Confused

You are so busy trying to 'judge' an answer to a direct question that you have shown yourself rather senseless and silly to me. What up with this, 'your vanity' You don't know me!!

All your asinine comments can be summed up like this, the woman asked about MARY MAGDALENE. She didn't ask to give a detail by detail breakdown of how the SUPPRESSED TRUTH an act of SEXISM, was revealed. I graciously responded to her question with the truth. Now, how you get 'vanity' out of that I'll never know but as said, get help. Besides the whole point you're trying to make is stupid as you actually want to attack ME?! My personal spiritual beliefs? Of which you don't know about anyway, as I wasn't addressing the entirety of my personal spiritual beliefs. I don't know you that I would have to tell you my beliefs for you to up and decide to bypass the question posed, and dissect, distort, and downright GET WRONG FROM JUMP STREET, AS I TOLD YOU IN THE FIRST PLACE.

See how 'vainly' judging a stranger who don't know or care what you think about my spirituality has in fact, made a fool out of you? Now you want me to fight you a professed blind girl insanely jumping into the midst of decent conversement that simply consisted of, and get this...ANSWERING A QUESTION POSED...SHEEESH GIRL GET A GRIP ON YOURSELF... Roll Eyes

If as your asinine retorts are insinuating you want to fight a woman like me, then become woman enough to do it! That is, come on a board stating who you are, and why you feel the insane need to attack a stranger's answer to a question posed with regard to Mary Magdalene.

At that time, and that time alone, I will filter through that rubbish you put out there and do away with it.
"Sexism is not the fault of the Church. It is a human condition that the Church has too often fallen prey to, but sexism did not arise in the Church. It arises in our hearts, and some sexists are not men. We are all infected with it."

thanks for the link, Melesi! The above thought is interesting. I'll return to it when I come back home from work
peace and blessings
N.Spirit
prophetess of rage,

Apparently you are more rage than prophetess, for your last answer to me was pure emotion and reaction, not thought.

1. "Who are you to tell me what I have and have not read?"

Well, DO you read Greek? You merely reacted in anger without actually answering the question, you know. OK, you have a chance to answer what you did not before. Tell me if you read Koine Greek or not. I do, and have for years, so I probably know a little more about the Greek that you were quoting than you do. But how about you? Was I right or was I wrong about your not reading Greek?

And you do not "rock my world." People who sound authoritative about things they get very wrong do not "rock" any "world."

2. "You have shown yourself rather senseless and silly to me."

Then it should be no problem for you to show how that is true, yet you didn't. You state that I was "senseless" and "silly," but you do not give an illustration of just how I did that. Would you do that, please?

3."Vanity."

Did I use that word to and of you? I don't think so. That certainly was not my tone or intention. If I did use it, would you point out just where I did?

I would think that my admitting where you were right and where I was wrong would be indication enough that I did not blame you for vanity. In fact, if I remember correctly, your having any vanity did not even enter my mind. Would you enlighten me on this?

4."You actually want to attack me?"

Just where did I attack you? I corrected you, that is true, but in a reasoned and reasonable discussion that's going to happen. You tried to correct me and I did not nor do I now see that as an attack on me. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong and deserve--need--to be corrected.

I do not think that I attacked your "personal spiritual beliefs." I did correct your perceptions of history and the Church, and if your personal spiritual beliefs are based on that, then you will have to change those beliefs since they then were founded on false understandings, but I do not see where I attacked your personal spiritual beliefs.

Where did I do that?

5. "Bypass the question."

I do not think that I bypassed the question. The question was about Mary Magdalen, which you will find that I addressed, by the way, if you will read my entire posting. Along the way, I also addressed what you got wrong, but remember, you had to post that first for me to address it.

So I did not "bypass the question." I in fact answered more than only the original question, but I did answer the original question.

I hope that your accusing me of doing that does not mean that you haven't been paying attention.

And so far, you haven't shown me where I am wrong.

6. "Made a fool out of you."

Again, you haven't shown how this is so. Just saying it isn't proof. Just complaining about it doesn't help.

Oh, and the word is "conversation," not "conversement."

7. "Why do you feel the insane need to attack a stranger's question posed with regard to Mary Magdalen."

I'm not certain that correcting false information is actually "attacking." And as to being a "stranger,"
A. We all start out as strangers, and we all meet the first time, so strangerhood (as opposed to "strangeness," which has a different connotation) is part of the process of learning about each other.
B. You decided to make a reply to a general question to people who evidently haven't exchanged with you before, so conversing with a stranger is not a problem for you.
C. You are not reacting with anger to anyone else, so I would conclude that your anger is because I disagree with you as strongly as you disagree with me. Is that fair or reasonable?
D. I am not calling you names like "asinine." Since I am not attacking you personally--and yet you are attacking me personally--shouldn't some of your words be directed against yourself?
E. who has been here longer and has more posts on this board? That would make which of us more the stranger? So perhaps you are the one feeling a need to answer the stranger's questions and information?

8. "That rubbish you put out"

What rubbish, exactly? You haven't shown that anything that I have said is "rubbish." But I have shown you that some of your (apparently) cherished beliefs are wrong. Is that what you resent?
Psst...melei ole girl, over here. Do I get a "f" from computer/internet grammar school inc. or sumptin' that YOU should fret over the way I phrase my words on my bought and paid for computer?

Now, to stop you from making a further uh...whatever of yourself, let me say this, What's your race? Who are you? What is your objective in talking to me? Are you the computer school grammar teacher going around correcting the grammar of strangers on computer?

Let me try this one more time and see if it clicks. I'm not over here on this one subject to DEBATE YOU of all of people. This post was not about a DEBATE on Christianity and sexism as much as it was about MARY MAGDALENE, as so I gave my general point of view on the matter, not specifics on sexism and Christianity because, true spiritual Christianity isn't about oppression of women as I repeatedly, do you hear me, repeatedly gave examples of YESHUA/JESUS lifting up women. Oh, and by the way, His HEBREW NAME, I'm not going to use the HEBREW WORD LOOK IT UP ON STRONGSCONCORDANCE.COM and you'll find it, but the name itself is YESHUA OR YAHSHUA OR YASHUA in it's english spelling...hey, no need for you to retort with the actual GREEK SPELLING and show us all you got edumacation. As the Bible says, 'knowledge puffs up' and by inference makes you so full of yourself you loose common sense and all sight of TRUTH which is God.

Annnnnyhooo....Not another word, until you show yourself WOMAN ENOUGH TO REVEAL WHO YOU ARE AND WHAT YOUR DISPOSITION TOWARDS THE GREAT ME IS, THAT MOVED YOU TO BURST IN, REFUTING BASIC COMMON SENSE CONVERSEMENT...I like the sound of that word and since its my computer, I'll type in 'CONVERSEMENT' whether you approve or not. Big Grin

Well girlie...gotta go, your antagonism towards me a complete stranger to you, has been quite a show...whew!

By the way, if you want to 'strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel' that's all good but I tell ya girl, Jesus wouldn't! Big Grin

Now, if you seriously want a debate, over sexism and christianity I can't, because it EXISTS and its origin is white's version of Christianity and they did do it! Razz

And to think black women, ALL THIS from me simply and graciously answer the mary magdalene question. Watch out sunnubian we got a live one here... rotflmao rotflmao rotflmao
prophetess,
You don't like having your imperfections pointed out, do you?

Grammar corrector? No, but when a teacher of authoritative tone decides to teach what is manifestly wrong about the Church, I just might respond with something a bit more true.

It's an indication of where your heart and mind are that you have so easily turned from discussing the original subject to an attempt at reputation destruction.

Well, if this was supposed to be a debate on Mary Magdalene, then you started off on the wrong foot, for you went immediately to the subject of sexism and racism putatively originated by those awful Bible translators. It only took you three paragraphs in your original post to start talking about the stifling and patriarchal world into which Jesus was born.

I did not respond to that post, you'll notice.

Then in your very next post, your second post, in which you answer a question from negrospiritual, you launch into a long and incorrect discussion on Bible translators.

I disagred with you rather gently, you'll see if you go back to read what was written, and even when I disagreed more strongly I still did not berate you nor call you the names that you call me routinely now. So if you're going to talk about tone, remember that you threw the first stone. If what goes around comes around, it's your own fault.

I would not doubt that you are not here to debate me. That's because you have not shown the ability to debate at all. All you have done so far is to announce, to proclaim, and when someone asks you for proof and support for your arguments, you become snide and..full of hate.

And you have refused to admit that you have been wrong, and you have avoided answering some questions--such as about the Council of Macon. That indicates that you are not here to encourage or to persuade but only to browbeat and demand.

Your anger gets in the way of understanding others. It would have been easier to take you seriously if you had taken others serously, but you didn't.

Since your objection and part of your thesis is about the Church, and since you used the Bible and Greek as part of your argument, the third paragraph in your last post is inconsistent.

Yes, knowledge puffs up, but ignorance kills. You tend to have a great deal of ignorance when it comes to the Church and to the language of the Bible, but you're talking as though you actually know what you're talking about.

The Great You? No, there is no Great You. There is only you, you who are very wrong sometimes, but not big enough to admit it. You who are very wrong sometimes but quickly stoops to personal attacks when shown to be wrong.

It isn't that I disapprove of "conversement." I just thought that it was ironic that the one who sets herself up as a teacher could be so wrong about so many things at once, including sixth-grade English.

Your icons are very adult, too.

You may wish to include sunnubian, but you really don't have to. At least she argues with her mind and not just her hormones.
I read your 'judgment,' psychoanalytical outlook on me a stranger, but as stated, "And your race?

Okay, other than that, you're wrong, you don't know me, or where I'm coming from, but you have shown me where you are coming from and I see, I see.

For the record, I was responding to your affront as I wasn't or am not in the mood to get into 'religious dogma' arguments as that's not the point. Still, as said, I see where you are coming from, just tell me your race and if your intent was to come over and answer some of the dynamite posts, or just answer ME and MY ANSWERS to these posts?

P.S. To show you there are no hard feelings to your odd conduct, check out the direct link to all those purty greek/hebrew words you want me to put down for you. You're welcome.

http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html

[This message was edited by Prophetessofrage on October 21, 2003 at 07:32 PM.]
You don't want to get into "religious dogma" arguments? What on earth do you think this thread is? From the beginning it was that, for the first post was about Mary Magdalen, and when you joined the fray it took little time for you to berate religious white men for their erroneous translations of the Bible becasue they blocked our understanding of Khemetic Mary.

What is all this but a "religious dogma" argument? And now you say that you don't want to get into one?

You lost the argument on facts, and now you don't want to pursue it?

And how can you see who and what I am after this short a time and still insist that I do not know you? Think again.

Don't think of yourself so highly. You aren't so important that I came over here just to answer you or your posts. I answered your posts because you are so wrong. It didn't matter who was saying the things you said. I answered the lack of knowledge, not the person.

Oh, and about the link--I've been there. It's ok, it's even helpful to people who don't know Greek but it's not impressive. However, if you'd like some help with Hebrew or Greek--and you should--just let me know. I'll be glad to help you out.

Your welcome.
Aw, you're back and at it real early eh? Okay, I do thank you for being EXHIBIT A live specimen of what I was telling black women with regard to truth demolishing it's enemies. Still I'm going to put a stop to you making a spectacle of yourself. It'll be a mercy killing. Then if you insist on coming on this BLACK WOMAN'S SITE to speak solely to this FIXATION you have with that GENERAL COMMENT I made on the MARY MAGDALENE issue, It''ll be a good laugh but kind of played out.


Let me SPELL IT OUT to you like this. TRUTH HAS ALREADY DEMOLISHED YOU but you are to BLIND, DEAF, and DUMB to see it. You in one of your ramblings blabbered with regard to my statements "I just mentioned the overall, in general statements' which of course is WHAT I SAID IN THE FIRST PLACE. End of that story.

As for your intent, you claim yourself a supposed 'Christian' but you came forth DECEITFULLY, WITH AN AGENDA, JUST LIKE SATAN. By the way, have you ever spoken on any given topic over here ever or were you just moved by that 'RAGE IN YOU' to speak soley to me? I mean we do all know that negrospiritual had to tell you to FOCUS AND ANSWER THE QUESTION LIKE I DID. And speaking of AVOIDING THE QUESTIONS again, WHAT IS YOUR RACE?

Now it is you who are STUPID ENOUGH to profess that you were so full of A FUMING RAGING DEMONIC SATANIC NATURE that you sought to devour like your daddy, SATAN....These are your ACTIONS that make you the FOOL, .....GET IT NOW...DUH?

You're so full of ARROGANCE like SATAN, that you are BLIND to your MADNESS like SATAN (Isaiah 14:12-15).

You're so full of LIES, like SATAN that you won't even answer the basic question WHAT IS YOUR RACE? (John 8:44). In fact, you're just FULL OF IT...and too STUPID TO KNOW IT.

Now me, I have been CHRIST-LIKE and graciously sought to bow out when I saw what a TROUBLED, PREOCCUPIED WITH ME...OH SO TOUCHED....DETERMINED TO MAKE THIS SPECIMEN OF YOURSELF YOU ARE and so be it.

As for the Mary Magdalene issue what part of I don't choose to talk to a LOON LIKE YOU don't you understand? Let it Go! It's not that I can't answer an idiot like you, it's just that you are so full of insanity that I WON'T CONVERSE with an IDIOT LIKE YOU. GET THE PICTURE NOW FOOL?!!!! I doubt it, but I'm done with your MARY MAGDALENE FIXATION.

Now, HEAR THIS, WHAT IS YOUR RACE?


P.S. I'm posting this comment here and in the other post where you were blabbering. With regard to YOU ALREADY KNOW THE LINK PUFFED UP MENTALITY then you DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE ROOT WORD AND WHERE IT CAME FROM NOW DO YA, FOOL? Unbelievable!
The rest of the answer is on the other thread.

As for being ready to discuss the "root word and where it came from," what gave you that idea? I am more ready to discuss root words than you are. You're the one who has sputtered that you don't want to talk about this any more.

I'll be glad to oblige you. What root word do you wish to discuss?

How about "Love," or "respect"?

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×