Comments by "Kasumi Rina" (@KasumiRINA) on "UsefulCharts"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@missyw2088 this is one of those things where priests absolutely went ape-t and decided to combine AT LEAST THREE different characters (Mary of Bethany, Mary of Magdala and "sinful woman" from Luke) into one, AND assume she's a s3x worker. (Because no way a woman could have sinned by, say, being a thief or something)... All three are associated with anointing, but under VASTLY different circumstances.
Mary the sister of Martha washed Jesus feet (common courtesy at the time tho she went a few steps further) when they all were at Lazarus place in Bethany, and her sister Martha was chastising her for lazying about instead of doing chores, which Jesus cut short by saying that her service in listening is not lesser... That's in Luke. In John, however, she used oils to anoint Jesus feet and it was Judas Iscariot who complained that they could have sold the perfume and gave the money to the poor, with a footnote that he didn't care for them, but was a thief and often stuck his hand in the cookie jar.
Matthew and Mark have the anointing AND complaining, but without naming Mary OR Judas. Their stories sound second hand retold while John's sounds more private.
The unnamed woman sometimes associated with her was at a party hosted by a Pharisee named Simon, he was chastising Jesus for not having a predjustice against her... It is NOT specified why she was considered "sinful", monks just can't take their minds out of the gutter. She also washed Jesus feet and anointed Him, and Pharisee got roasted with parables of the guy getting the bigger debt forgiven loving the debtor more than the one who got less written off.
^ these stories are different but thematically very similar, accepting an assertive woman who doesn't take the traditional role, getting chastized by onlookers, and the anointing of head or feet, usually with nard perfume. Technically, it could be all the same woman, but it's simpler to assume separate characters in narrative. We don't have the sources synoptic Gospels used.
Magdalene, however, is described as a sponsor who traveled with them basically, so she was definitely well off, and she DIDN'T KNOW Jesus was already anointed, so she went with other women to carry myrrh to the tomb, and found it empty. If she was EITHER of previous women, she wouldn't have tried to do that. Narratively speaking, she would be there to hear "she anointed me for my burial".
Anointing is a huge symbolic point as it's required for high priests and the King, that's why it's in all four gospels, though Mary of Bethany does it in one, unnamed woman in others, and Magdalene in none.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@KutWrite Dunno why you speak of titties but there's nothing clear, not only we have different line between David and Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, in Bible there's a long tradition of describing men begetting sons, and unless you have proof of mpreg, it's more likely they mentioned women.
Conflict between writing down patrilineal heritage but kids obviously coming through matrilineal was very widespread in the region, and it led to 3000 years of pharaohs marrying their sisters (or brothers in case of Cleo) SO THEY DON'T HAVE TWO SEPARATE DYNASTIC TREES, and have one... family wreath.
Since these two lines vary so much, and we don't have sources Either authors might have used, the two main views are that EITHER one of them describes Mary's lineage, OR that one follows legal and other biological lineage (i.e. ignoring the adoptions).
But then in first option they need to be cousins, in English version of Sailor Moon sense, and in second it's complicated network of brothers dying childless. Genealogies are the most confusing part, and it doesn't help that nobody really cares so it doesn't get cleared up.
Don't blame scholars: it took them 1500 years to notice that Bethany and Magdala aren't even in the same region. And not every Mary is the same and unnamed women aren't, in fact, all necessary another Mary (or the same Mary). Oy, it's like a Mexican Bat Mitzvah!
1
-
@ No idea why you speak of birds but there's nothing clear, not only we have different line between David and Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, in Bible there's a long tradition of describing men begetting sons, and unless you have proof of m-preg, it's far more likely they mean their missus (so Eve not Adam being heavy with a child).
Conflict between writing down patrilineal heritage but kids obviously coming through matrilineal was very widespread in the region, and it led to 3000 years of pharaohs marrying their sisters (or brothers in case of Cleo) SO THEY DON'T HAVE TWO SEPARATE DYNASTIC TREES, and have one... family wreath.
Since these two lines vary so much, and we don't have sources rither authors might have used, the two main views are that EITHER one of them describes Mary's lineage, OR that one follows legal and other biological lineage (i.e. ignoring the adoptions).
But then in first option they need to be cousins, in English version of Sailor Moon sense, and in second it's complicated network of brothers kicking farm childless. Genealogies are the most confusing part, and it doesn't help that nobody really cares so it doesn't get cleared up.
Don't blame scholars: it took them 1500 years to notice that Bethany and Magdala aren't even in the same region. And not every Mary is the same and unnamed women aren't, in fact, all necessary another Mary (or the same Mary). Oy, it's like a Mexican Bat Mitzvah!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Questionablexfun I think bloody John Williams was divinely inspired writing Duel of the Fates; and I hate prequels. I don't think people understand what INSPIRATION means, Divine Spark doesn't meant opening a direct portal to the Netherrealm and channeling secrets of another universe, it means what it says, a lighbulb moment with the Spirit guiding the people to create masterpieces. And as Ganntrey pointed out, when it comes to theological texts, it means staying within lines. Great example is compilers of the Genesis Creation story being INSPIRED to remove mentions a specific model of the world, unlike Babylonian account, which, by picturing flat Earth, completely discredits itself. I would say man made out of clay is also divine inspiration telling authors to describe the primordial muck in terms familiar to ancient people. As opposed to pagan religion having outright fantastical, instead of allegorical, creation myths of sun goddess belching them out from the Moon or something.
1
-
1
-
16:07 So one major differences, even if we apply SUPER-critical view on Bible, it still would have Cyrus the Great, Nebuchadnezzar II, multiple named pharahos mentioned elsewhere, cross-reference with Babylonian, Greek and Roman stuff, AND Hebrews themselves mentioned by other nations, i.e. Merneptah and Tel Dan steles, while Book of Mormon is pretty much what is known as a "forgery", i.e. a 19th century book claiming to be a Medieval poetry collection.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
4:44 Neither do many other languages, a cousin would be "двоюрідний брат" literally second-relation brother, and "двоюрідна сестра", a second-relation sister. On the other hand, English doesn't have words for "теща", "тість", "свекр", "зять", "золовка", "шурін", etc. they're all mother-father-sister-brother-whatever-in-law. In fact, there's a different term for a husband's MiL, "теща", and wife's MiL, "свекруха". This is like with colors, you have separate words for of pink, and magenta or purple and violet etc., but "синій" і "голубий" are both "blue".
1
-
1