There has been some suggestion that Mary Magdalene was Jesus' wife. We believe he had a wife in secret in a betrothal where he enjoyed conjugal rights but it may not have been Mary Magdalene. There is no scriptural evidence. What we see is that Mary is described as a believer who received deliverance from the spirit of adultery. It does not say she had five men and the one she is with now is not her own. But, this theme of a woman in the adulterous liaison is popular in the gospel and this is because there was cultural tension in the world with people from different newly settled Roman outposts brought to Israel to absorb the law and culture of family and civilization; civilization and family. Mary Magdalene may have been one such soul; but not a woman with the settled culture of separate family with a mother and father in the home and with children seared into her bones, emotions and flesh. She would probably ask, "...why does it have to be like this, this way where man and woman cohabit and there is pressure from the community to respect man when I can have my own ways; in a cave or just by myself? I know I can find men who will help and I will become a colony of my own." Mary Magdalene's husband may have been another apostle like Zacchaeus or Bartholomew after many years of vetting her faithfulness as a witness of the gospel and as a proponent of Leviticus. Zacchaeus or Bartholomew would have been a relative of Hosea. Hosea does not appear in the genealogy of Christ.
There has been some suggestion that Mary Magdalene was Jesus' wife. We believe he had a wife in secret in a betrothal where he enjoyed conjugal rights, she had children and he visited with them as he stole away in secret quite often to get away from the crowds but it may not have been Mary Magdalene. Looking at that culture, it was probably a cousin of his and someone he knew from a very early age or it might have been someone he saw in the market or at synagogue and he sought her as a wife.
There is no scriptural evidence. What we see is that Mary is described as a believer who received deliverance from the spirit of adultery.
It does not say she had five men and the one she is with now is not her own. But, this theme of a woman in the adulterous liaison is popular in the gospel and this is because there was cultural tension in the world with people from different newly settled Roman outposts brought to Israel to absorb the law and culture of family and civilization; civilization and family. Mary Magdalene may have been one such soul; but not a woman with the settled culture of separate family with a mother and father in the home and with children seared into her bones, emotions and flesh. She would probably ask, "...why does it have to be like this, this way where man and woman cohabit and there is pressure from the community to respect man when I can have my own ways; in a cave or just by myself? I know I can find men who will help and I will become a colony of my own." Mary Magdalene's husband may have been another apostle like Zacchaeus or Bartholomew after many years of vetting her faithfulness as a witness of the gospel and as a proponent of Leviticus. Zacchaeus or Bartholomew would have been a relative of Hosea. Hosea does not appear in the genealogy of Christ.
- Abraham
- Isaac
- Jacob
- Judah and Tamar
- Perez
- Hezron
- Ram
- Amminadab
- Nahshon
- Salmon and Rahab
- Boaz and Ruth
- Obed
- Jesse
- David and Bathsheba
- Shealtiel
- Zerubbabel
- Abiud
- Eliakim
- Azor
- Zadok
- Achim
- Eliud
- Eleazar
- Matthan
- Jacob
- Joseph
- Jesus
- You can add yourself here as born of the blood, water or Spirit and then we will have a more peaceful world. You have your family and you are now a joint heir in Christ; a descendant of Obed.
But, essentially the theme of adultery and the adulterous woman appears often in the gospel. The reason is that the population was a blended population with some people well settled in the Egyptian Israeli Levitical culture and then many people who were new arrivals to this culture and possibly imported from the frontiers of civilization in parts of Rome that included Briton Islands (or England today). Jesus' comments on family indicate that family itself with these frontiers men or cave men blended into the community point out that some cave men fathers would have been struggling with Leviticus and family was sometimes in conflict between the generations in that genetic and cultural tumult with son and father at odds; almost like a Darth Vader and a Luke so to speak. But, we see the good in him if he would just let go of his anger and his hate for this world and its Levitical order. We confirm that Herod was one of these frontiers men but also the appointed leader of Israel or King but as a foreigner who was given apologetic authority in an old bastion culture while his people in Britannia were about to suffer crucifixion, land appropriation with legal and physical submission to the Roman order at the hands of very hungry, angry and tired Romans very often. We see that Herod is not unlike Mary Magdalene in terms of his responses to Leviticus and he is full of questions for any Rabi and also resentful if they would have to stop him and correct him. They were fully trained lawyers. England had become an expert, teacher and progenitor of law in the modern world during the middle ages with its Courts of Chancery and its Courts of Equity where they instilled the principle that if there is any conflict between law and equity, equity prevails. It was an exemplary culture of Courts and also justice we hope. But, if there is a law, there is probably the crime being committed that the law is to thwart. England is not hypocritical in this regard as evidently, English people do commit crimes. The law will work, however, to stop and thwart these challenges to Rex and Regina. We only have a Rex at the moment. We thank God for the Rex just as we thanked God for the Regina.
We only wonder if the Jesus movies may have resurrected some old tensions within England between Residual Herod anthropology who have a guttural way to find themselves presumptively, without any desire for education, respect for the law and preparation in the halls of decision making only to cause problems and then resent those who have enough good motivation and desire to read the existing laws to solve it with an ongoing filibuster between the evident tendencies. This tension is therefore between the modern day Herodians and the rabbis, barristers, solicitors and all other teachers of the law; for the authority resulting in a Herod Downing Street and a Herodian Parliament with the country suffering in these rather unusual and untimely anthropological hijinks. I'm only joking. There is just a Downing Street and a Parliament but evidently there has been an on going gender hate crime since 1980 in the income support benefit system that is also seen simply as benefit inequality.
It is untenable and unproductive and also embarrassing to the English establishment; especially the broken income support system. A broken income support system would be just as embarrassing as a north Circular full of potholes or a rusty looking underground train system.
You should be able to call a police officer and say you are a victim of benefit fraud taking place at the job centre and they should show up to arrest the fraudster. You should be able to call the police and say that you are the victim of a Gender hate crime contrary to the laws of England and Wales; in the UK or in Canada. If you pointed out this malady in the press, the matter should resolve itself over night because Herod and all of the Herodians are dead. There is no one named Herod who could offended by this notion and even if Herod was here today, he would have to abide by the laws once he is identified. We will place a plaque at Pentonville for Herod because he stole the Roman monies intended for the disbursements to the people of Israel during his time in Israel. At least Herod will have his honor and his infamy.
We see the Herodians were also debating submission to the authority and playing with the Roman monies as well as the transfer of funds to be made unto Caesar (Maybe this was Vespasian's anthropology) as they hoped some of the teachers would be just like them. Jesus taught them that He is not like them but in some translations He also said, "...Render unto me what is MINE!"
Render unto Caesar
.jpg)
"Render unto Caesar" is the beginning of a phrase attributed to Jesus in the synoptic gospels, which reads in full, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" (Ἀπόδοτε οὖν τὰ Καίσαρος Καίσαρι καὶ τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ τῷ Θεῷ).[1]
This phrase has become a widely quoted summary of the relationship between Christianity, secular government, and society. The original message, coming in response to a question of whether it was lawful for Jews to pay taxes to Caesar, gives rise to multiple possible interpretations about the circumstances under which it is desirable for Christians to submit to earthly authority.
Narrative[edit]
All three synoptic gospels state that hostile questioners tried to trap Jesus into taking an explicit and dangerous stand on whether Jews should or should not pay taxes to the Roman authorities. The accounts in Matthew 22:15–22 and Mark 12:13–17 say that the questioners were Pharisees and Herodians, while Luke 20:20–26 says only that they were "spies" sent by "teachers of the law and the chief priests".
They anticipated that Jesus would oppose the tax, as their purpose was "to hand him over to the power and authority of the governor".[2] The governor was Pilate, and he was the man responsible for the collecting of taxes in Roman Judea. Initially the questioners flattered Jesus by praising his integrity, impartiality, and devotion to truth. Then they asked him whether or not it is right for Jews to pay the taxes demanded by Caesar. In the Gospel of Mark[3] the additional, provocative question is asked, "Should we pay or shouldn't we?"
Jesus first called them hypocrites, and then asked one of them to produce a Roman coin that would be suitable for paying Caesar's tax. One of them showed him a Roman coin, and he asked them whose head and inscription were on it. They answered, "Caesar's," and he responded: "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's".
The questioners were impressed. Matthew 22:22 states that they "marvelled" (ἐθαύμασαν); unable to trap him any further, and being satisfied with the answer, they went away.
A similar episode occurs in the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas (verse 100), but there the coin in question is gold. Importantly, in this non-canon gospel, Jesus adds, "and give me what is mine."[4] The same episode occurs in a fragment of the also apocryphal Egerton Gospel: Jesus is asked whether it is right to pay taxes to the rulers (i.e. the Romans), to which he becomes indignant and criticizes the questioners by quoting the Book of Isaiah; the fragment is interrupted immediately after that.[5]
Comments
Post a Comment