Mary and the Pharisee: Biblical?

[Bravus]

Hi All

I've heard before the notion that one (or some) of the Pharisees who accused the 'woman caught in adultery' had either (a) used her services as a prostitute or ( actually recruited her into prostitution. In the sermon today the story was about Mary and the alabaster box, and the claim was made that Simon, the healed leper Pharisee at whose house that story happened, was that guy.

So, is it biblical that (a) the woman caught in adultery was in fact Mary Magdalene (who also had her brother Lazarus raised from the dead) and ( a Pharisee named Simon had originally seduced her and got her into prostitution?

Or is it some kind of church tradition? Or something from EGW? I don't want to get into big arguments about what that would mean, I just want to know whether what is being presented from the pulpit as biblical actually is...

[Nicodema]

Bravus, I always understood that Mary Magdalene and Mary the sister of Martha (whose brother was Lazarus) were two different Marys. A third Mary is, of course, the mother of Jesus. Ellen White is the one who mentions Simon the Pharisee as having something to do with the woman caught in adultery in conjunction with the Mary who anointed Jesus' feet with an alabaster box, and I think this is where the confusion stems from, because it is generally thought the woman with the alabaster box was Mary Magdalene, NOT Mary the sister of Martha & Lazarus.

So in summary, there are 3 different Marys: Mary the mother of Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the sister of Martha & Lazarus.

That is how I understand it anyway.

I don't know about Ellen White's thing about Simon, etc. and the Pharisees rigging up a trap to get the woman caught in adultery. I do think what you heard was definitely based on EGW because the Bible does not state how the woman came to be in adultery nor even what TYPE of adultery it was (e.g. whether prostitution or an affair); only that she was caught and they wanted to stone her.

[Nan]

Morris Venden had a sermon he called The Gospel according to Mary in which he accepted that the Mary with the alabaster box was Mary Magdalene was the sister of Lazarus. That does not answer Bravus' question - but it is not a new thing in SDA theology, that would be almost 30 years ago I think.

[bevin]

It is well known that the Desire of Ages used ideas, structure, and phrases from a variety of books that EGW and others had read (for a good list see)

http://www.ellenwhite.org/rea/rea6.htm

So, we should look at

Edersheim, Alfred

The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, (1883) Reprint, Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1967.

Hanna, William

The Life of Christ

New York, American Tract Society,

A source of such books is

http://hinduwebsite.com/general/etextschristian2.htm

I did not find the concept in Edersheim. All I could find was

Quote:

---

In fact, according to Jewish criminal law, punishment could not be inflicted unless the offender (even the woman suspected of adultery) had previously been warned before witnesses.

---

I did not look in the other books.

/Bevin

[Michelle]

Not Biblical. SDA tradition, at least. Same as with (at the beginning of the quarter of SS studying Mark) Jesus calling 11 disciples but not calling Judas. That is not Biblical either, but is EGW. FWIW.

M

[Ron Lambert]

Saying that it is not Biblical does not mean it is not true; it just means the Bible does not clearly say so. Ellen G. White equates the Mary at Simon's house who annointed Jesus' feet with Mary the sister of Martha, and also with the woman taken in adultery, and with the Mary out of whom Christ cast seven devils. All one and the same. Ellen G. White is also the one who said it was Simon who led Mary into her life of sin.

Quote:

---

Simon had led into sin the woman he now despised. She had been deeply wronged by him. By the two debtors of the parable, Simon and the woman were represented. Jesus did not design to teach that different degrees of obligation should be felt by the two persons, for each owed a debt of gratitude that never could be repaid. But Simon felt himself more righteous than Mary, and Jesus desired him to see how great his guilt really was. He would show him that his sin was greater than hers, as much greater as a debt of five hundred pence exceeds a debt of fifty pence. --

Desire of Ages,

pp. 566-7

---

We can see by the above that Ellen G. White may have deduced that Simon was the one who started the woman in her life of sin based on the parable that Jesus told, about two debtors, one whose sin was far greater than the others'.

I incline to believe all these things are true. At least they seem reasonable to me. I don't know if this is something Ellen G. White learned by vision, or just something she concluded herself; but even if the latter were the case, I would tend to respect her opinion even so. The opinion of someone with a mature Christian experience such as hers, who spoke with Jesus and with angels, has to be given weight, even if it is "just her own opinion."

I also think that the two disciples Jesus walked with on the road to Emmaus were Cleopas and his wife Mary (a different Mary). But I arrive at that by inference and deduction from some actual hints given in the Bible.

[Clio]

I have another thought for you Bravus... Pull out your Bible and follow me through the Gospels...

The Bible identifies a woman who anoints Jesus with an alabaster box at the house of a Pharisee named Simon as "a woman of the city who was a sinner."[Lk 7:37] Jesus then forgives her all her sins, which sins He says, "are many." In the very next section, we are told that Mary Magdalene, "out of whom He had cast seven demons," had begun following Jesus and the Apostles [Lk 8:2]. Jesus says that because the woman had been forgiven much, she loved Him much [Lk 7:47].

The assumption is often made that the woman is Mary Magdalene and that she was some sort of prostitute because "woman of the city" could have that meaning in some situations. The text does not explicitly identify the woman as Mary Magdalene or as a prostitute, however. Luke does say Mary had had seven demons cast out of her and responded by following Jesus. It must have been clear to Luke as he wrote that the strong similarity between these two women and their juxtaposition in immediate succession would lead many to identify the two as the same person. The gospels often go to some pains to avoid such confusion, for example, when John speaks of"Judas" at the Last Supper and adds, "not the Iscariot." So by failing to clarify that Mary Magdalene is not the same woman, Luke in effect is allowing us to make that identification.

This, if correct, would lead to a second conclusion very rapidly, for the anointing of Jesus is REQUIRED by an express command of Jesus to be recorded whenever the gospel is preached [Mt 26:13]. Therefore, because the ONLY anointing Luke records is the one by that "woman of the city," we must conclude that this is the same anointing as we see recorded in the other gospels. Note what the other accounts add:

The anointing is in the house of Simon THE LEPER of BETHANY and the box contained "VERY PRECIOUS" ointment [Mt 26:6-13]. This anointing of Jesus is followed WITHOUT A BREAK by Judas betraying Jesus, implying a direct link between the anointing and Judas' decision [Mt 26:14-15].

Mark adds the fact that this ointment in Simon's house was of a very precious substance called "SPIKENARD"--but someone complains, "Why was this WASTE of the ointment made? For it might have been SOLD FOR MORE THAN 300 PENCE."[Mk 14:3-5] That equals a YEAR'S WAGES in those days, or roughly $20,000 in modern terms. Obviously, this was a black-market

ointment, something ILLEGAL, such as oil used to anoint someone KING.

John, at last, completes the story: The woman who anoints Jesus is none other than Mary of Bethany, the SISTER OF MARTHA AND LAZARUS. So the woman was named MARY after all. And because she and her sister are supposed to serve guests in this house, a house we can now identify as the house of Simon the Pharisee, a "leper" (which some say was a coded way of identifying a person who advocated independence from Rome, and who was ostracized like a leper on the Sanhedrin), we must see Simon as the FATHER of Mary, Martha and Lazarus.

Now it becomes clear why these three siblings are living in the same house; it is the family estate. We know that Lazarus is wealthy when we are told of the huge crowds that gather when Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead. Bethany was on the eastern slope of the Mount of Olives

--prime real estate. Yet Lazarus' family owns a large enough estate to have this huge throng there ("the WHOLE WORLD has gone after Him"), and a private tomb on the property of a PHARISEE who would want to maintain ritual purity by keeping his house as far from a tomb as possible.

Simon is a wealthy Pharisee living on choice property near Jerusalem with a house big enough to sleep several adult men and women. It is his daughter who anoints Jesus with contraband royal ointment in his presence at a dinner in honor of his son Lazarus.

This explains why a Pharisee would allow a "woman of the city who was a sinner" into his house and let her POUR HER OINTMENT ALL OVER JESUS AND ONTO HIS FLOOR. Pharisees would NEVER permit a STRANGER to enter their home who might be "unclean" and pour oil of UNKNOWN origin onto their floor. (She wipes the oil on Jesus' feet also.) For the ritually pure Pharisees this was anathema. But if this is his very own daughter, a woman he knew, and if he knew exactly where that oil had come from, then the mystery vanishes.

So where did that oil come from?

The term "SPIKE-nard" is very misleading. The Greek actually calls it "GENUINE nard"--which the translators change to "SPIKE-nard" on the assumption that some copyist made a mistake. But the correct reading of "GENUINE" has awesome implications. It signifies that this was the

GENUINE anointing oil. In other words, THE GENUINE royal anointing oil of the priests and kings. The oil of KING DAVID. Of the MESSIAH, the ANOINTED One.

No wonder Jesus insisted they include this story in every telling of the gospel. This was His official anointing as Priest and King.

Clio

[Ron Lambert]

Good points, Clio. And notice who it was that the God of the universe and Savior of man was willing to accept the annointing from. Not a prophet like Samuel, or a representative of the priesthood or king; but a forgiven sinner of great ill-repute; someone who was regarded socially as the least of the least. This one God exalted above all others by allowing her to administer the annointing of mankind's High Priest and King. I would suggest that Christ could not have become our High Priest and King without the annointing by Mary.

Why was Mary so exalted? because she was the only one of Christ's disciples who had sufficient faith to allow herself to be led by the Holy Spirit to perform this mysterious act.

[Bravus]

I largely agree with the points raised by Ron and Clio: as I said at the start of the thread, it doesn't even bother me too much if that version of the story is not (explicitly) Biblical. It did worry me the way it was presented in the sermon I heard though, very much *as though* it was absolute Biblical truth straight from the text. I think that's very unfortunate - maybe it's just the academic in me, but proper attribution seems particularly important when we're talking about biblical vs non-biblical.

Clio: does it seem plausible to you, in your otherwise quite convincing chain of events that, if Simon was in fact Mary's father, his reaction to her interaction with Jesus would be "surely if He were a prophet he would know what manner of woman this is"?

[Gregory Matthews]

Bravus:

I have read the other replies, and they are on the right track.

The bottomline: There are Biblical inferences that peple draw from the story. But, in my mind, it cannot be conclusively proven.

It is something like the sermon that I preach that suggests (No, I do not say it is proven.) that Barabbas who was released instead of Jesus had also claimed to be the Messiah. In essence, the Hebrew people were exercising a choice as to who they wanted as a model of the Christ--Barabbas or Jesus.

I can support the above by some interesting speculation, but I cannot prove it, and I do not make that claim.

[Clio]

Actually, although Jesus chose to emphasize this, there is another, more important reason why Mary of Bethany's, who is also Mary Magdalene, anointing of Jesus was accepted and proclaimed wherever the Gospel is preached.

Mary and Martha are grown women living in their father's house on a large estate. This is most unusual. Ordinarily the only way a woman would return to her father's house was by being widowed or divorced or if her husband had gone on a long journey and left her otherwise alone.

The Talmud has a curious story about a man named Nicodemus. It says he was one of the richest men in Jewish history. This Nicodemus had two daughters named Mary and Martha: Martha was a widow who returned to her father Nicodemus' house, while Mary had married an extremely rich man and had brought him a huge dowry. The Talmud does not say why Mary was

living at home, but we may assume her husband travelled a great deal.

The Talmud places this story 30 years AFTER the Biblical Nicodemus-- a generation later. Tradition says that Nicodemus and his whole family were ARRESTED because of their Christianity. All were exiled to Gaul by 37 AD, except Nicodemus, who is said to have seen them sail off from Caesarea. Yet the Talmud seems to place the family a generation later.

But according to Psalm 109, people convicted of capital crimes—and the book of Acts says that professing Christianity had become a capital crime--had their NAMES BLOTTED OUT "unto the second generation." So it was FORBIDDEN for the rabbis to publicly discuss or write about someone who had been blotted out, as Nicodemus and his family had been. By the shifting of the "time" of the Talmudic stories 30 years later, rabbis could write about blotted-out events during the "forbidden" period. We have many Talmudic stories about Jesus, Lazarus and other blotted-out New Testament figures, which also exhibit a similar time-shift.

"Nicodemus" means "innocent of blood" and is hardly a name one receives at birth. So "Simon" might well be his given name. When the Sanhedrin condemns Jesus, the vote has to be UNANIMOUS. Yet we know that two members, Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus do not feel Jesus is guilty. This can only mean that Caiaphas the High Priest held their proxies and cast their votes for them. The Talmud and other sources reveal that Joseph and Nicodemus were wealthy men who traveled far from Jerusalem, in the metals and grain trades respectively. Because they were not always available to vote, they had to give their proxies to the High Priest.

(Bear with me... the above is important)

Nicodemus was a "RULER" of the people on the Sanhedrin, a man of great wealth (he held a monopoly on grain in Jerusalem). His friend Joseph of Arimathea was in similar circumstances. Undoubtedly, both men often traveled together for months at a time.

But why did they bury Jesus together?

The Jewish law of burial left a man UNCLEAN for handling a dead body --which would have prevented these men from eating the Passover, if we accept John's gospel [Jn 18:28]. But the NEXT OF KIN were REQUIRED to bury their family members. That means both men were related to Jesus.

The Bible gives us a great deal of information regarding Mary, the Mother of Jesus' family structure... this is also important.

The Bible declares that Mary lost her virginity at the birth of Jesus [Lk 2:23; Is 66:9; Rev 12:4], had sex with her husband [Mt 1:25], and was mother to many other children after Jesus [Mt 12:46-47; 13:55-57; 27:56,61; 28:1; Mk 6: 3-4; and many other similar passages]. To maintain the myth of Mary keeping her virginity even after giving birth, Rome decided in 1871 that Mary had herself had a miraculous birth without original sin and without any siblings. This is false.... You can check geneologies to be sure.

Joseph of Aramithia was her younger brother, uncle to Jesus. When their father, Heli Joachim, died, Joseph took over the family's seat on the Jewish Sanhedrin. If this were not so, Jesus could not be David's heir. The "honored seat" Joseph held on the Council was, of course, the seat of the House of David, the KING'S SEAT. Jesus sat on it at age 12 [Lk 2:41-51]. Joseph of Arimathea had to adopt Jesus by Jewish law if he believed Jesus to be legitimate, for Joseph was the male elder of the family and a brother had to adopt his sister's unheired sons.

Which Jesus certainly was having been conceived prior to Mary's marriage to her husband Joseph... who was of the line of Jeconiah, forever barred from David's throne.

Had Joseph been an uncle of Mary the line of inheritance would have deviated away from Jesus: Mary would not have had it to pass down to Jesus in the flesh. Rome's efforts to deify Mary deny Jesus the throne of David by natural inheritance, contrary to Scripture [Lk 1:31-33].

So Joseph of Arimathea was obligated to adopt Jesus. The adoption papers are quoted by Luke in chapter 3 of his gospel.

"When Jesus was about to be thirty years of age, He became by custom [by adoption] the son of Joseph, the son of Heli..." [Lk 3:23, literal rendering]

All this means that Joseph of Arimathea had to be married to a woman of very wealthy and high status. Only such a woman would be suitable to wed a man who held his position. Nicodemus married his daughter Mary to such a man. Could Mary be Joseph's wife?

The gospels state that Joseph of Arimathea [the city of Matthew: See his genealogy] buried Jesus in his own UNUSED tomb in Jerusalem. Joseph had acquired it RECENTLY, for no one in his family had died and ever been buried in it; yet the average age of death in those days was under thirty, with many babies born dead. This can only mean that Joseph had obtained the site during his life and did not inherit it.

The common way such a tomb would come into a family was as part of a DOWRY. But if Joseph married Mary of BETHANY of the Mount of Olives, then the dowry tomb would have been on the Mount of Olives and the site of the Crucifixion must have been near Bethany at the summit of the

Mount.

Mary had to be a woman of great importance. To gain a tomb on the summit of Olivet was one of the most sought-after desires of every Jewish person, but hardly anyone could achieve it. Joseph was given a piece of land when he married Mary that he would literally die for. But if he were to divorce her, it would revert to Nicodemus.

This man Nicodemus was not only a member of the Sanhedrin, but a rabbi and Pharisee and a ruler of the people. All this makes him one of the CHIEF SCRIBES. The house of Benjamin was given the right to keep the written genealogies of the priests and kings to decide which persons were entitled to inherit. The Torah says Benjamin will "DIVIDE the SPOILS"-- that is, the inheritances of Israel.

Benjamin was allotted six seats on the Council. One of these seats was occupied by the chief elder of the tribe; the Ruler of it. John calls Nicodemus a "Ruler" and implies Nicodemus is the chief elder.

We know from 1 Chronicles 5 that the elders of Benjamin were expected to live in Jerusalem, and that included Olivet. The grain monopoly he held indicates that his family had pre-eminence. To have absolute and total control over the food supply of Jerusalem is hardly the kind of thing a lesser line of Benjamin would inherit. Nicodemus had to be of the chief family--hence the HEAD of the tribe.

But there's a catch. In Benjamin, the WOMEN pass down the line of inheritance. Not Lazarus, but Nicodemus' elder daughter Mary was the heir of the line. Her son would sit on the Sanhedrin.

The term for the one who holds the authority is "PILLAR" (from the idea that the family is a kind of building and a pillar is the most prominent support of the edifice, hence the regal building block of a family or institution).

In Hebrew, "pillar" is a "M'GD'L" or "magdal." So the name "Mary, the Magadalene" means "Mary the Pillar (of her tribe)." She was the chief heir of the tribe of Benjamin.

To compare how this title was used in the Bible, the term used to describe "The High Priest" in Hebrew was "Ha-Kohen Ha-Gadol" or "The Priest, The Pillar"--that is, he was the SUPREME Priest of the tribe, the Chief elder of Levi. Mary is called "Ma-Gadol-aH-eN" or "Great Pillar Female One"--that is, she was the "Great Supreme Woman" of her tribe: Benjamin.

Now we see her conferring her tribal honor on Jesus, making Jesus the heir of Benjamin by adoption through her husband Joseph. That had the effect of giving Jesus the LEGAL RIGHT TO OFFICIALLY APPOINT what HE called SCRIBES of the Kingdom"--the writers of a NEW testament. But the tribe of Benjamin could do more than keep written records that DESIGNATED

the Priest and King. It could ANOINT them.

When Mary brought out the "genuine Nard" and anointed Jesus, she was declaring Jesus the official King. Jesus observed that she in effect had anointed Him for burial. Why? Because it was illegal and He now reeked of contraband oil. The penalty was death under Rome's law.

The gospels say she stood behind Him and poured it all out upon His head and wiped the residue on His feet with her hair. This act of hers in standing behind Him and pouring it on His head, is standard practice for an OFFICIAL ROYAL ANOINTING. Apparently she did not intend to pour it all out, and when she did, she tried to wipe it up with her hair.

But Jesus chooses to emphasize her love and His forgiveness of her prior sins "which were many."

John records the Sanhedrin bringing a woman to Jesus who was caught "in the very act" of adultery. Jesus is asked to judge her. Only her husband, her father, and her eldest son had this right. The reason is that each had a legal stake in the dowry. If found guilty, a divorce would cause the dowry to revert to her father's house. Jesus as Mary's male heir, albeit by adoption, had a legal basis for judging her.

When Jesus sets her "free," He does so conditionally. "Where are they who accuse you?" --meaning her father and husband. No doubt they were off on one of their merchant trips, which is why Mary had gotten into trouble out of loneliness. While Jesus had saved her life for the moment, she was still under a kind of "house-arrest" pending the return of Joseph and Nicodemus. A woman left alone for months or even years at a time could easily fall into adultery. And could be forgiven for her weakness.

But no child of Mary Magdalene's born after this incident could inherit...and certainly not the throne of David! Orthodox rabbis still hold to this rule.

Which brings us to how Nicodemus could find Jesus so easily at night in that house at Bethany, coming to Him "secretly" by night. He simply walked down the hall and knocked on His door. After all, it was his own house, and Jesus was his grandson by adoption.

And that explains why Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea were the two men who were required by law to bury Jesus: His adoptive father and maternal uncle and His adoptive grandfather, respectively. It also explains why Mary Magdalene, his adoptive mother, was at the tomb with

His natural mother Mary and her sister Salome.

As for the business about Mary calling Jesus "rabboni"--it was her proper title for the heir of the family and the person who had saved her life and was now sort of her "parole officer" and responsible for her behavior in the future. He had become a legal guardian over her, because her continued life was His responsibility, having let her go after her capital crime, under the Law of Moses, of adultery.

Clio

[Clio]

I think it is very interesting that Nicodemus is given a name meaning "innocent of blood" even though the Sanhedrin voted unanimously to crucify Jesus.

I also would like to thank two very dear friends who helped me to study this out over a period of years.....

Clio

[Morning Glory]

Wow, this is indeed facsinating!! Thank you so much for sharing it with us!!

MG

[bevin]

Quote:

---

Mark adds the fact that this ointment in Simon's house was of a very precious substance called "SPIKENARD"--but someone complains, "Why was this WASTE of the ointment made? For it might have been SOLD FOR MORE THAN 300 PENCE."[Mk 14:3-5] That equals a YEAR'S WAGES in those days, or roughly $20,000 in modern terms. [:"red"]Obviously[/], this was a black-market

ointment, something ILLEGAL, such as oil used to anoint someone KING.

---

Not at all obvious. Ancient societies, even more than today, had widely disparate distributions of wealth. Some Hetiera's were extremely wealthy - rather like the courtesans of the 1600-1850's in Europe. It is not at all improbable that a successful high-grade call-girl in Israel could have saved up much more than 1 person's annual wages. One of the Greek ones paid to have a whole city rebuilt.

See Edersheim...

Furthermore kings were not anointed with expensive oil.

See Josephus...

/Bevin

[Clio]

Jesus was not anointed according to Josephus. Jesus was anointed according to the plan laid out by Abba when Israel wanted a king.

Jesus inherited David's Kingship... so it would have been according to that ceremony.

Mmmmm... Perhaps I shouldn't be so flippant. The recipe for making anointing oil, which was used for the first time to anoint Aaron and the priests in the desert, is found in Numbers 24 I think. Twenty something anyway...

When Israel clamored for a king, they were instructed to use that oil for anointing the one Abba Father chose to be their king. Their earthly king was a literal and physical type of their Heavenly King. Of course the oil used would be the same as for the priests.

And under Roman Occupation, I am equally certain they would not have used the Holy Anointing oil on someone deemed a Roman pawn.

Clio

[Bravus]

Ron wrote:

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Simon had led into sin the woman he now despised. She had been deeply wronged by him. By the two debtors of the parable, Simon and the woman were represented. Jesus did not design to teach that different degrees of obligation should be felt by the two persons, for each owed a debt of gratitude that never could be repaid. But Simon felt himself more righteous than Mary, and Jesus desired him to see how great his guilt really was. He would show him that his sin was greater than hers, as much greater as a debt of five hundred pence exceeds a debt of fifty pence. -- Desire of Ages, pp. 566-7

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">We can see by the above that Ellen G. White may have deduced that Simon was the one who started the woman in her life of sin based on the parable that Jesus told, about two debtors, one whose sin was far greater than the others'.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

But to me, just reading the parable straight, it seems pretty clear that Jesus is saying that the woman was the one forgiven much (her sins were many), and that was why she was so much more grateful than Simon, annointing Jesus with perfume and washing his feet with her tears, whereas Simon, not forgiven much (by his own reckoning) didn't even bother giving Him water to wash his feet. EGW's interpretation seems to turn that on its head... How read you?

[Clio]

Quote:

---

But to me, just reading the parable straight, it seems pretty clear that Jesus is saying that the woman was the one forgiven much (her sins were many), and that was why she was so much more grateful than Simon, annointing Jesus with perfume and washing his feet with her tears, whereas Simon, not forgiven much (by his own reckoning) didn't even bother giving Him water to wash his feet. EGW's interpretation seems to turn that on its head... How read you?

---

Simple... the seeds to the answer are contained in the paragraph about who had the RIGHT to judge her...

Only those who had the right to judge her... Simon her father, Joseph her husband, and her first-born son through adoption, Jesus.

Since it's obviously not incest, the Simon who is her accuser is not her father, although he has the same name. And while we are told her sins are many, are not our sins many? They didn't all have to be adultery.

Clio

[Guest]

Quote:

---

Morning Glory said:

Wow, this is indeed facsinating!! Thank you so much for sharing it with us!!

MG

---

Yes printed words contain power just as the Harry Potter books author has discovered, but the question a Christian should ask is "What does that have to do with printed words from inspiration which is truth?" When it came time for heaven's account by Matthew, Mary [the ex whore] the sister of Lazerth was still alive. Also when heaven's account by Mark, Mary the sister to Martha & Lazerth was still alive in this young church and needed not be reminded of her life as a harlot. But when heaven's account by John was put in print Mary was now dead so he didn't mind telling us more details about Mary. Now when heaven's account was needed to be put in print by a English speaking prophet, the same inspiration that inspired Matthew/Mark/John now inspired Ellen White to give us last day people instruction of how to not trust in narry a one made up stories that tickle the ears, but instead demand "a thus sayeth the Lord".

[Clio]

Quote:

---

Ed White said:

Now when heaven's account was needed to be put in print by a English speaking prophet, the same inspiration that inspired Matthew/Mark/John now inspired Ellen White to give us last day people instruction of how to not trust in narry a one made up stories that tickle the ears, but instead demand "a thus sayeth the Lord".

---

Which Bible texts did you miss? Are you saying that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are all incorrect regarding the customs of the time in which they lived, including the laws, both religious and secular, under which they lived? I'd really like to know how you manage to equate this with Harry Potter based on reading it over... once, twice at most three times.

Since when does Simon, a birthname of fairly common occurance, belong to only one person mentioned as being seated on the Sanhedrin?

Have you bothered to check the ANY of the supporting BIBLE texts I provided or reviewed the historical documents that would support what I wrote?

It is a serious thing to claim someone is scratching tickling ears.

Clio

[Gregory Matthews]

Clio, thank you for bringing this to our attention. I find it very interesting. I do not know if it is 100% accurate, I think that there is some speculation involved, but, that is O.K, and what we often have to do. Again, I find it very interesting. You have done well.

[Clio]

Quote:

---

Gregory Matthews said:

Clio, thank you for bringing this to our attention.

---

You're welcome.

Quote:

---

I find it very interesting.

---

Me too. It fascinates me.

Quote:

---

I do not know if it is 100% accurate, I think that there is some speculation involved, but, that is O.K, and what we often have to do.

---

This is very true. But great effort was taken to ensure that the speculation was in keeping with known Mosaic law, Biblical precedence, geo-political realities at the time, and a common sense application of human behavior... which hasn't changed all that much since Adam and Eve were banished from our home.

Quote:

---

Again, I find it very interesting. You have done well.

---

I cannot take full credit... I had help from two others who assisted me greatly in this endeavor.

In fact... I would say they had much more effort into this than I did.

Clio

[Guest]

Quote. "But great effort was taken to ensure that the speculation was in keeping with known Mosaic law, Biblical precedence, geo-political realities at the time, and a common sense application of human behavior..."

================================

Now a surface reading bible student could detect that this attempt is a few bricks short of a full load, but others can detect that the truck was never loaded. We should ALL be thankful the Bible is still within our reach.

[Gregory Matthews]

Clio:

Re: "Now a surface reading bible student could detect that this attempt is a few bricks short of a full load, but others can detect that the truck was never loaded. We should ALL be thankful the Bible is still within our reach."

Ed has stated very well what others often think about him.

[Clio]

Thanks Gregory.

I have great compassion in my heart for Ed and a few others here. And since I know how I have reacted to this kind of baiting all my life, I can only conclude that Jesus also has great compassion for them... because when I asked for His heart to respond... compassion is what is there.

*sigh*

Thank you for saying something though... it does help.

Clio

[Guest]

Quote:

---

Clio said:

Thanks Gregory.

I have great compassion in my heart for Ed and a few others here. And since I know how I have reacted to this kind of baiting all my life, I can only conclude that Jesus also has great compassion for them... because when I asked for His heart to respond... compassion is what is there.

*sigh*

Thank you for saying something though... it does help.

Clio

---

Clio this "baiting" you have incountered "all your life" may not have a barb on the hook at all, it could be be a blessing if rightly received.

"At every advanced point the heart is tested and tried a little closer. If the professed people of God find their hearts opposed to this straight work, it should convince them that they have a work to do to overcome, if they would not be spewed out of the mouth of the Lord. Said the angel: "God will bring His work closer and closer to test and prove every one of His people." Some are willing to receive one point; but when God brings them to another testing point, they shrink from it and stand back, because they find that it strikes directly at some cherished idol. Here they have opportunity to see what is in their hearts that shuts out Jesus. They prize something higher than the truth, and their hearts are not prepared to receive Jesus. Individuals are tested and proved a length of time to see if they will sacrifice their idols and heed the counsel of the True Witness. If any will not be purified through obeying the truth, and overcome their selfishness, their pride, and evil passions, the angels of God have the charge: "They are joined to their idols, let them alone," and they pass on to their work, leaving these with their sinful traits unsubdued, to the control of evil angels. Those who come up to every point, and stand every test, and overcome, be the price what it may, have heeded the counsel of the True Witness, and they will receive the latter rain, and thus be fitted for translation."1T 187