why isnt Mary [Magdalene]

why isnt Mary [Magdalene] considered an apostle....she meets the "requirements" [as far as i know them]...

 

I thought she was an apostle.

 

as far as i know she isnt...

 

http://www.gotquestions.org/twelve-apostles-disciples-12.html

 

Probably because she was a woman.

Some of the old Gnostics though believed she was one of the leading disciples.

 

she lacks the one major qualifier: a penis.

 

yeah, it was more rhetorical...mainly cause ryu was getting a little up in arms about Islam and women...

technically she is THE apostle as she was the first to see the Ressurrected Christ and beleive...then she had to convince the rest that He did rise, and they didnt belive her...bah

 

Well, as far as I know she was much more honored than an apostle, the CHURCH represents her!

However, my best explanation would be this:

She didn't spread around the world the world to spread the good news like an apostle did.


That's my opinion, but I believe someone like Epiphany or JesusdiedforU
have better explanations...

If not, I'll ask my on-fire friend (my spiritual 'mother', meaning she ministered to me) for an explanation. She's been Christian for 9 years,

Or check out this book:
http://www.magdalene.org/brockreview.htm

 

Because the early Roman Church's upper echelon was a homosexual men's club for an extensive period up until and even some time after the Council of Trent 1545 - 1563.
Bishop Bernard of Rheims (died 1153) wrote ~
"that any lust so abominable as this had at any time occupied the mind of man! The enemy of man has defiled the body of the church with the execrable ashes of the Sodomites; indeed the most filthy and abominable crimes have defiled its very ministers. many of these offenders, it is certain, cannot be concealed on account of their multitude, nor, by reason of their impudence, do they court concealment; and many are seen to have employed into licentiousness for an occasion to the flesh, and hence using this liberty of theirs for perpetrating every crime."

Thus are the representatives of the christian church described by one of their own. These are the pious, pure, and perfect platforms upon which the christian church was built.
Read the papers lately regarding the Holy Roman Catholic Church? Nothing much has changed at all!! Like the good bishop said ~ the enemy of mankind (satan) has indeed defiled the body of the church.
Sadly, the problem is people insist that the christian church is incorruptible, even when it was known to be corrupt from the very beginning.

 

I just thought it was because they chose to remove certain scriptures when they were 'fixing' the bible http://king-james-bible.classic-literature.co.uk/ to be the way they wanted.. that being the men (not sure if they were gay, very anti female anyway..turning her into a whore) that thought a womans voice within the bible would be unacceptable. I am sure in a few hundred years when the whole process is done again, they will re-establish her true character.

 

it's problably cause she was a woman and that she was labeled as a prostitute until pathetically recently. women according to the bible are dogs...

 

Has anyone here read The Gospel According to Mary Magdalene? It's a bit fragmented from being burried in a clay pot for over a thousand years but according to it Jesus told Mary things he didnt even share with the other apostles.

 

There is wisdom in it (Mary's Gospel), but I doubt it's claims of origin (Being Mary's Gospel) are true. The writing style is not right.

 

yes ive read it...it also goes into more detail about how Peter didnt believe her, and didnt like her...

but like Kharakov said, it is questionable in origin

 

I'm a bit confused by what you mean regarding the origin, it's an early gnostic christian text. Were'nt all the gospels written by someone other then the apostles names they were ascribed to?

 

Mark and/or Luke i think were the ones that scholars believe that are the ones written by who is atributted

 

http://newadvent.org/cathen/06655b.htm

 

im sorry, that site didnt load for me...what was it supposed to be?

 

I got the feeling of a modern person trying to impersonate ancient writing style. A lot like reading Anton Levay... the writing, while having some mystic wisdom in it, had the feeling of someone pretending to be what they were not.

Don't know if I understand what you mean by this question. Technically, any writer is a tool of God (from Dean Koontz to the authors of the bible), so God is the author.

 

I think the earliest copy of this text found was dated back to the 2nd century.

So technically the writer of this book was a tool of God as well? I don't have any idea as to the authenticity of this text, and to be honest I dont really care either. I was just adding it to this thread for anyone who had never seen it before.