Gosh, I've been so caught up in other things I almost forgot about my wonderful blog I have here! Nevermind that now, I will be talking about a interview on the topic of The Da Vinci Code I watched recently. (It's about an hour and 25 minutes, so you might want to start it once you have some time!) I have provided the link for those who want to hit it up, but only about the first quarter of it is on the topic of our lady, Mary Magdalene, and that is the part I will be talking about. (LINK:)
https://www.biblicaltraining.org/breaking-da-vinci-code/breaking-da-vinci-code
I have my notes here, but before I start, here is a little more about Dr. Bock,
__________________________________________________________
Darrell Bock has earned international recognition as a Humboldt Scholar (Tübingen University in Germany) and for his work in Luke-Acts and in Jesus’ examination before the Jews. He was president of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) for 2000–2001, and serves as corresponding editor at large for Christianity Today. His articles appear in leading journals and periodicals, including many secular publications such as the Los Angeles Times and the Dallas Morning News. He has been a New York Times best-selling author in nonfiction, and is elder emeritus at Trinity Fellowship Church in Dallas.
___________________________________________________________
Dr. Bock is quite a admired scholar and I mean no offense, I just felt I wanted to share my thoughts about his remarks.
Bock makes quite interesting remarks, he believes Mary and Jesus were not married, and had no connection what-so-ever, and while he states, "In all 25 gospels, and, wait, 10 other scriptures (he is referring to codexs) we have not one verse to state that Jesus was married. Don't you think, someone would of even dropped a hint? Nevertheless, actually mentioned it?" Hmmmm... yes, it is indeed a good point, but we also do not have any gospels (or codexs) that actually state Him as single, or unmarried, actually these gospels go out of their never mentioning His sexuality. *cough*actuallythereisone*cough* and I *cough*amstudyingit*cough*. So, what is it? The Gospel of Pistis Sophia. I am studying it on my free time, a book with commentary by J. J. Hurtak. The Gospel is a Nag Hammadi gospel, (such as the Gospel of Thomas and countless others) basing off Jesus after His resurection, channeling Pistis Sophia (The female Christos in Gnosisim), on the mount of Olives, with his disiples. Mary Magdalene, is talking way too much and despite Peter consistently "telling" her to let him have a turn, she never does. At one point, she looks to Jesus and tells Him, "My Lord, my mind is always with the understanding to come forward each time with the solution of words, but I am apprehensive of Peter because he threatens me and despises of OUR sex." So. How are you going to explain that? This is, the only time in any gospel OR codex that we know of today, where Mary talks openly about sexuality like this, and further to point out she says, "our sex", not, "and despises of sex" (in general). Does this mean they were necessarily married? Well, depends on how you twist it. This is just ONE gospel out of 25, and it happens ONE TIME, so should this be over-looked? If it were kissing, I would say yes, but since of course Mary pointed out the ONE thing Jesus said NOT to do unless married... "Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be
undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous." Hebrews, 13:4
Woo, back to Dr. Bock. I guess I went on a limb there, right? Heh, heh...
Now, here is something I thoughtfully agree with. In the Gospel of Thomas, there is a verse where it states that, "The Lord loved her more than the others", and he pointed out that, "Because the Gospel said the savior loved Mary more than the others, means that he must be married to her." In a mocking manner, of course. If this were talking about, say, Peter, everyone would just accept that Peter was the favorite and nothing more than that. Right? Now, this doesn't put up much argument because of what I just touched up on. Sorry. I seriously need to organize my posts more :-)
Also -- one last thing - he taught me what "PDA"s are. He said, "all the youngsters know what I'm talking about", ... where has my life gone? Anyway, PDA stands for, "Public Display of Affection" - bet you didn't know that! HAH! Fun fact for the day. (Oh, over-looking everything I just talked about... PDAs prevail.)
Thank you SO for reading!
~~Clarabelle
No comments:
Post a Comment