|
BerianAardvark -> RE: Mary Magdalene (6/15/2008 1:31:33 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LCannon Probably two different situations(for my money). Lazarus/Mary/Martha apparently had significant resources to use their(her)ointment bathe his feet. Mary Magdalene(the 'other' Mary)was someway an outcast(leper? harlot?) because the Jews scolded her(and him)for her association her. The ONLY thing that scripture says about Mary Magdalene's past is that Jesus cast out seven demons from her, never is it recorded that she was in any way an outcast...indeed she was one of three women mentioned who were following Jesus and supporting His ministry with her substance. (Which would have giver her high status among His followers) [Now after He had risen early on the first day of the week, He first appeared to Mary Magdalene, from whom He had cast out seven demons. (Mark 16:9) and also some women who had been healed of evil spirits and sicknesses: Mary who was called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, and Joanna the wife of Chuza, Herod's steward, and Susanna, and many others who were contributing to their support out of their private means. (Luke 8:2-3) Being demon possessed would make you an outcast while you were possessed, but (in that day and culture) once the demons were cast out, what you had done then was not held against you From the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: It is not to be forgotten that the malady demon-possession, according to New Testament ideas had none of the implications of evil temper and malignant disposition popularly associated with “having a devil.” The possessed was, by our Lord and the disciples looked upon as diseased, the victim of an alien and evil power, not an accomplice of it. The woman of Luke 7 is carefully covered with the concealing cloak of namelessness. Undoubtedly known by name to the intimate circle of first disciples, it is extremely doubtful whether she was so known to Luke. Her history is definitely closed at Luke 7:50. The name of Mary is found at the beginning of a totally new section of the Gospel where the name of Mary is introduced with a single mark of identification, apart from her former residence, which points away from the preceding narrative and is incompatible with it. If the preceding account of the anointing were Mary's introduction into the circle of Christ's followers, she could not be identified by the phrase of Luke. Jesus did not cast a demon out of the sinful woman of Luke 7, and Mary of Magdala is not represented as having anointed the Lord's feet. The two statements cannot be fitted together. Tim
|
|
|
|