Greetings, dear Palm... and the greatest of love and peace to you! My apologies for the delay in responding - I've took a couple days off [from the board - LOLOLOLOL!]
The more I read, the more I wondered why she is so ignored.....both by the WTS and those who chose the Bible cannon.
There are two reasons, one of which that she was a woman, but many (including the WTS) will say that wasn't the primary reason: the primary reason, they will say, is because she wasn't an "apostle" per se. That is the main excuse given. Funny, these same ones do consider Paul an apostle (and some even consider him Judas' replacement de facto, which is a great error in that it totally disregards the Spirit choosing of Mathias to replace Judas)... and my Lord's fleshly brothers, James and Jude, are also considered apostles by some. But none of these were of the "twelve", including Mary, so the excuse is weak. Her being a woman, however, played a part due to the "law" of Rome at the time (which is the law Paul was referring to when he wrote that he "didn't permit" women to speak [in public]. My understanding, however, is that she wrote MANY things which, for the sake and safety of the Body, were attributed to men with her knowledged and permission. That is because, unlike today, it wasn't about who wrote what to whom back then, but simply about building up the Body. Thus, several things attributed to "Paul" were not actually written by him; some were attributed to him, however, because of the "weight" he carried among some.
She had such close association with Jesus and being of a different gender,.....I think she may have picked up on nuances and tones of teachings that the men may have missed.
Absolutely! Not just that, the women, particularly this Mary and Mary, the fleshly mother of my Lord, not only picked up on nuances but has MUCH greater faith than the men... always! Which is one of the reasons, I am told by my Lord, he is using me... versus a man. Women tend not only to have more faith than men (who are very visual creatures), but courage. All of the men but one (who I will discuss below) ran and hid when my Lord was hung on the stake. Peter denied him outright. When you mention this to men today, they get their feathers all ruffled... but it is the truth. Women have always been portrayed as "weaker", particularly after Paul's words to this affect. The truth, however, is that while we may have weaker "vessels"... physical bodies... due to the capacity to bear children and thus the body's special needs in that regard... we are not weaker in any other sense. To the contrary, some will say that behind every powerful man, there is a woman. And there are many historical accounts, including some recorded in the Bible, that support this.
My points were just random thoughts and open for discussion. I haven't seen anything that says she was present at Pentecost and I sort of thought it would be significant whether she was there or not.
There really is no reason to think, given her relationship to my Lord, that Mary would NOT have been present at the outpouring of holy spirit at Pentecost. Since she pretty much went where the men went, and since the manifestation of the outpouring was evidenced in both young men AND young women, reason should tell us that she was there. But a better Source would be the One who caused such outpouring, and when I asked HIM, he asked me, "Was it not upon young men AND young women that the Father's holy spirit was placed, child? Was Mary not my true disciple? Why, then, would I have withheld such a gift from her?" So, I have to go with that, dear one.
She almost seems as close to Jesus as his "beloved" apostle.....yet her thoughts are not recorded.....well, her thoughts are not respected.
Again, I would say don't jump to this conclusion. That her name is not associated doesn't mean her words/thoughts weren't recorded. Again, we... who knew NONE of these people personally, so as to know whether they were honest, truthful, people... put SO much store in "who" wrote "what." That is a mistake becaue, again, not everything was written by whomever it is currently attributed to. True, some of the apostles had a bit of a problem with her... as a woman... because they had problems with women, in general. The account of my Lord speaking to the Samaritan woman at the well shows this. But not all of them did and I am sure that, over time, whatever problems the ones that had them did, they got over them to the best of their ability. Otherwise, their progress would have been hindered. If, however, they were truly being guided by the Holy Spirit, he would have helped them "see" where they needed to improve. HE had no problem with women...
Greetings, dear Belbab... and peace to you! May I comment on a couple/few things you wrote? Thank you!
Figuratively speaking, he was more feminine in his activities, than being an aggressive male.
This is because he, like the Most Holy One of Israel, are both male... and female. The male quality is dominant; however, the female quality is what tempers that dominant tendency. This is why Wisdom, which IS my Lord, is depicted as a feminine entity.
It would take women with somewhat rebellious natures living up to their names to leave the security of their homes and follow Jesus about. It so happened that a number of these woman carried the name, “Mary”
I had to smile at this statement. I don't think it's rebellion so much as a sense of not going along with something that's wrong. Yes, Miriam rebelled... against "right." And "going against" anything can be considered rebellious. But rebellion is usually associated with someone going against what's "right" or "lawful." And I think, in the case of the Mary's of my Lord's day in the flesh, their "rebellion" was against the "norm"... which at that time was wrong. My smile, though, is because I can personally relate to such "rebellion." It is a trademark that I've always carried. I'm not really the type who "go[es] along to get along," so...
In the account of Martha and Mary, Jesus said Mary chose the better portion by listening to Jesus rather than helping Martha in the kitchen.
Yes. Martha was the family caretaker (for Mary and Lazarus), so she fell into her routine. Such things weren't that important to Mary, however; for her, my Lord's "table" had the better "food." Again, I can relate... and this sometimes gets me "in trouble" with various women in MY life - because I can't get into discussions about things of a... ummmmmm... more "domestic" nature. They just don't intrigue me. I don't really get a lot of joy out of discussion how I roast my turkey vs. how you roast yours. Put it in a bag then throw it in the over, I say. Always comes out just right, IMHO. I've always received compliments, folks ask for 2nds/3rds, and no complaints.
But talk to me about... well, almost anything outside of June Cleaver's realm of knowledge, and I'm pretty much "in." Talk to me about God and Christ and... well, it's kind of hard to shut me up (oh, hush, you ridiculers! You go on and on about whatever interests you, as well; at least I'm honest about it...)
In the account of a “Mary” anointing Jesus with costly ointment, at the instigation of Judas Iscariot, the apostles objected the waste of costly ointment. Mary discerned something that the masculine mentality of the apostles did not. Mary discerned that Jesus was going to die.
This is almost correct: she new because, just like the Most Holy One of Israel revealed to John the Baptist and Peter who my Lord was, He revealed to Mary that my Lord was going to give his life for her... and others. She not only understood that he was going to die, but die for her. And THAT is why she loved him so... and followed him... and remained by his side at his death. She considered ANYTHING that she could "do" for him to be HER privilege. And so she did the only things she could do: wash his feet when the men failed to do so (and since the men gave nothing to do it with, she used her tears and hair), oiled them (as the men should have), and then, by means of holy spirit, "anointed" him.
She didn't do this because she was literally a priestess at the time; she actually had performed "services" as a temple prostitute. She was "chosen" to do this, however, because... although previously a prostitute in the temple... by means of her FAITH she was considered "cleaner" than the priests she had "served" - those who SHOULD have done the anointing (indeed, they should have been lining up for the privilege). Because of their LACK of faith, however, they weren't given the privilege at all - instead, it was given to her, the formerly "unclean" woman whose faith had caused her sins to be blotted out... in the manner of Rahab (i.e., who, although a prostitute, had righteousness accounted to her because of her FAITH). By so "anointing" my Lord, she showed herself to be a priest(ess)... by HIS choosing, and not by the choosing of the temple priests (which is how they were usually chosen).
Peter previously tried to prevent Jesus from advancing to Jerusalem where he was destined to die.
Yes. Her faith allowed her to accept my Lord's destiny, where Peter's LACK of faith caused him to try and talk my Lord out of it. Thus, he was referred to as "Satan," because his faith was divided.
The apostle John, the disciple whom Jesus also loved, also could identify with Jesus’ more passive, less masculine nature.
Actually, the disciple who my Lord loved was Lazarus, aka "Simon the Leper"... also known as the apostle Simon the Zealot (Kananaios). John 11:3, 36; 19:26
He stayed awake during the night Jesus was captured and was aware of the events taking place.
Actually, John fell asleep, too, dear one. Matthew 26:37, 40, 45; Mark 14:33, 37; 40
However, Lazarus was there when my Lord was killed, however. He is the one to whom my Lord entrusted the care of his mother, Mary. John 19:26; 11:3
I know it's a lot of stuff and my apologies for the long post, but I hope this helps you both. Again, peace to you!
A slave of Christ,