G
- Status
S
Scott_Waddell
Guest
Yes, particularly weird was this [my bold]:
Scott
Huh? Is she unaware that the Blessed Virgin Mary was present at Pentecost? If anyone was a likely candidate for female apostleship, it was her. And yet she wasn’t. Thanks, Dowd for proving the Church’s teaching.
Scott
G
gilliam
Guest
Also Mary Magdalene was probably not a prostitute.
S
Scott_Waddell
Guest
Yes, another good point. It is a shame that anyone gives Dowd the time of day, but I guess all it takes for journalistic celebrity is to be a wiseacre.
Scott
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Mary Magdalene was not a whore. About Maureen Dowd, the jury is still out. (Intellectually speaking, of course.)
M
Maccabees
Guest
Are people aware that the church taught the prostitute whoever she is repented? She did not remain a whore. THere are no whores who are saints. There are repentant ex-whores who are saints though. This is feminism run amok.
It’s always been my opinion that Mary Magdalene was popular in church history precisely because whe was viewed as a repentatn whore. A lot of sinners could identify with her just as many dimwitted men could identify with Peter. The church’s saints have always been compromised of flawed people and the more flawed the beeter we remember them.
I mean who are the apostle we know and love Peter, Thomas and we certainly know Judas and yes many people feel sorry for the guy. John is popular because of his master thesis of a gospel but we don’t really love the guy for what he did in the gospel just too clean and boring but we certainly could identify with Peter heck Thomas has been popular although he is rarely mentioned in the Bible precisely because we have all been where Thomas had been. Doubting out Lord.
Frankly the cleaning up of Mary Magdalene as only the woman at the cross who had earlier been exorcised of demons make her a lot less interesting.
I do dig the sensous Mary Magdalene of the Renaissance the repentant whore, the woman who bathed Jesus feet with a jar of oil and long hair.
Now that those 2 sensous stories have now been taken away from Mary Magdalene she is no longer sensous and a lot less interesting.
Frankly if the church wanted to destroy the cult of Mary Magdalene they would be doing what they are doing now telling us that most likely the only thing we really know about her is that she was exorcised with demons. Most can’t relate to excorcism in our day and age. But we still can relate to people who fall into sexual sin. To me to have this sensous woman all roled into one via Pope Gregory the Great made her a gigantic figure for women and the church. It did not destroy her cult it encouraged it.
The church if it felt personal sin discredit one from being a sinner would have certainly thrown Peter’s faults away in scripture. When in fact he is the most flawed apostle apart from Judas. Time and Time again he puts his foot in his mouth.
If the church graded leadership the way feminist thing they did certainly the leaders of the church would have been the Virgin Mary or Saint John these guys come away squeeky clean and not Peter.
And you know what modernisic scholarship aside I think the truth is we just don’t know who these woman are in the NT that are unmaed and were previously beleived to be Mary of Magdala. Who knows Pope Gregory could have gotten it right.
But I do know this feminist are wrong Mary Magdalene did not have JEsus Baby nor was she a bishop in the church and the church did not seek to set her up.
She is an important leader in the early church as I see it and an apostle to the apostles as she told the apostles the good news first. But she just falls off the face of the earth after the gospels to conclude that she was a leader of a church and nothing was hinted at for centureis that she was a leader in the church until the 3rd century gnostic gospels your talking 300 years of no controversy here. THis is like China telling us that Martha Washington was the first President and not Geroge Washingtonn.
Your taking an outside source with an agenda to distort the truth credibitly 300 years after the known facts have been revealed and affirmed.
It’s always been my opinion that Mary Magdalene was popular in church history precisely because whe was viewed as a repentatn whore. A lot of sinners could identify with her just as many dimwitted men could identify with Peter. The church’s saints have always been compromised of flawed people and the more flawed the beeter we remember them.
I mean who are the apostle we know and love Peter, Thomas and we certainly know Judas and yes many people feel sorry for the guy. John is popular because of his master thesis of a gospel but we don’t really love the guy for what he did in the gospel just too clean and boring but we certainly could identify with Peter heck Thomas has been popular although he is rarely mentioned in the Bible precisely because we have all been where Thomas had been. Doubting out Lord.
Frankly the cleaning up of Mary Magdalene as only the woman at the cross who had earlier been exorcised of demons make her a lot less interesting.
I do dig the sensous Mary Magdalene of the Renaissance the repentant whore, the woman who bathed Jesus feet with a jar of oil and long hair.
Now that those 2 sensous stories have now been taken away from Mary Magdalene she is no longer sensous and a lot less interesting.
Frankly if the church wanted to destroy the cult of Mary Magdalene they would be doing what they are doing now telling us that most likely the only thing we really know about her is that she was exorcised with demons. Most can’t relate to excorcism in our day and age. But we still can relate to people who fall into sexual sin. To me to have this sensous woman all roled into one via Pope Gregory the Great made her a gigantic figure for women and the church. It did not destroy her cult it encouraged it.
The church if it felt personal sin discredit one from being a sinner would have certainly thrown Peter’s faults away in scripture. When in fact he is the most flawed apostle apart from Judas. Time and Time again he puts his foot in his mouth.
If the church graded leadership the way feminist thing they did certainly the leaders of the church would have been the Virgin Mary or Saint John these guys come away squeeky clean and not Peter.
And you know what modernisic scholarship aside I think the truth is we just don’t know who these woman are in the NT that are unmaed and were previously beleived to be Mary of Magdala. Who knows Pope Gregory could have gotten it right.
But I do know this feminist are wrong Mary Magdalene did not have JEsus Baby nor was she a bishop in the church and the church did not seek to set her up.
She is an important leader in the early church as I see it and an apostle to the apostles as she told the apostles the good news first. But she just falls off the face of the earth after the gospels to conclude that she was a leader of a church and nothing was hinted at for centureis that she was a leader in the church until the 3rd century gnostic gospels your talking 300 years of no controversy here. THis is like China telling us that Martha Washington was the first President and not Geroge Washingtonn.
Your taking an outside source with an agenda to distort the truth credibitly 300 years after the known facts have been revealed and affirmed.
M
Maccabees
Guest
vern humphrey:
I think she classifies as one. Here is why she told Bill Mahr that her idea of a good time was having premarital sex on the first date and an abortion after. That’s sick and if that is not whore behavior what is it?
J
JimmyV
Guest
Maureen Dowd
Another line Maureen no doubt spent a considerable amount of time to think about…
“But when you think of the history of the Catholic Church, the Vatican is acting with lightning speed. It took the church more than 350 years to reverse its condemnation of Galileo.”
And yet, just in the March/April 2005 issue of Gilbert Magazine was an reprint of an interview of G.K. Chesterton from the New York Times Magazine (Nov. 30, 1930).
Mr. Chesterton: “Indeed the Church for years was the only place in which the knowledge of the world was stored. Whenever I mention this, the name of Galileo is brought up (Maureen, that would be you) as an example of the manner in which knowledge was throttled by the Church. But we do not know the entire story about this and we do not know how much Galileo’s personality and not his teachings played a part in the treatment he was accorded. As a matter of fact even in astronomy some of the most important discoveries were made by priests, and the leading universities of the world, from oxford down, were founded by the Church.”
Another line Maureen no doubt spent a considerable amount of time to think about…
“But when you think of the history of the Catholic Church, the Vatican is acting with lightning speed. It took the church more than 350 years to reverse its condemnation of Galileo.”
And yet, just in the March/April 2005 issue of Gilbert Magazine was an reprint of an interview of G.K. Chesterton from the New York Times Magazine (Nov. 30, 1930).
Mr. Chesterton: “Indeed the Church for years was the only place in which the knowledge of the world was stored. Whenever I mention this, the name of Galileo is brought up (Maureen, that would be you) as an example of the manner in which knowledge was throttled by the Church. But we do not know the entire story about this and we do not know how much Galileo’s personality and not his teachings played a part in the treatment he was accorded. As a matter of fact even in astronomy some of the most important discoveries were made by priests, and the leading universities of the world, from oxford down, were founded by the Church.”
- Status