Mary and the Pharisee: Biblical?

[Clio]

Ed... I've decided to place you on ignore.

It has nothing to do with what you say, rather how you say it. You consistently choose to speak in derogatory, demeaning ways. You cannot simply say "I disagree." and then state why, providing proof from the Bible in a clear way.

In your posts to me you do not exhibit the fruit of the Spirit as recorded in Galatians 5:16-26. So you know which in particular I am speaking of... and it is only fair as I plan on ignoring you from here on... I will leave only those fruits I have observed in the text I am quoting.

19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: ... contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, ... dissensions, ... 21 ... of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. 24 And those who are Christ's have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.

Ed... your tone is such that one cannot dialogue with you.

It is a form of pride to be so certain of your sole inerrancy, and a form of arrogance to demean and condescend to others. I do not impugn your intelligence or character. But I do disagree with your presentation of your beliefs. I won't listen any more.

Clio

[Guest]

Clio

I have heard that song before, wasn't you yo-o-alting this same tune last month? Don't throw the baby out with the bath water now, as everyone needs a measure of truth from time to time. I will be here for that.

[Jeannieb43]

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

Bravus said:

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.

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

Ellen White explicitly states that it was Simon who led Mary into sin. And I think she also says that Simon was Mary's cousin [or uncle].

But the fact that this info is "extra-Biblical" but was presented as "gospel" in the sermon you referred to, could possibly have come as a result of your pastor having studied "The Clear Word" in preparation for his sermon. "The Clear Word" is NOT another version of the Bible. It is, rather, the Bible in today's English PLUS interpolations of EGW writings, inserted into the Biblical text -- without attribution! And those who unwittingly read it as though it's strictly another version of the canonical Bible will be led astray. After some uprisings by SDA scholars, Dr. Blanco has (in subsequent printings) removed the word "Bible" from the title. [it'd be too easy for Adventists to be classified with Mormons, as having to have "their own Bibles" if we were to continue to call The Clear Word by the name of Bible.]

P.S. I haven't had a chance to read this entire thread. Maybe somebody has already said all this. I just needed to comment on The Clear Word.

[Gregory Matthews]

Jeannie, there is an error in your post which may, on the surface, apear to be minor, but I feel is more important.

1) Dr. Blanco has removed the word "Bible" from the title: Sorry, Dr. Blanco did not remove the word "Bible" from the title, as he was not responsible for it being in the title. The word "Bible" was placed in the title by the publishers, without his knowledge. The reality is that Dr. Blanko was one of the many SDA Scholars who rose up and demanded that the publishers remove it.

2) As to your comment that the pastor may have used it in prepration for his sermon, you may, or may not, be correct. In any case, Dr. Blanco from the very beginning stated that the Clear Word should NOT be used for doctrinal study, and should not be used for preaching. He stated that is should only be used for devotional purposes, as he had prepared it for family worship.

3) Dr. Blanco, from the beginning, called it a "paraphrase." That attribution was honest, and approprate. In my thinking,it better describes The Clear Word than your description. But, that is a minor comment, as I do not have a major objection to your description.

4) However, your useage of the word "interpolations" has shades of meaning that are subject to challenge. As you have not gone into detail on the individual meanings that you intended to imply, I will not chalenge you. I simply want it to be understood that I am not fully subscribing to the meanings of that word.

The reality is:

a) Individuals have clearly missued it, as it has crept into corporate worship, and doctrinal study, which are both inappropriate.

The truth that I have stated above has been openly published in denominational publications, as well as the Preface in the Clear Word (in part).

[Robert]

It's ironic that "sinners" were attracted to Jesus while the self-righteous shunned Him. So it wouldn't surprise me at all if Mary Magdalene was the woman caught in adultery...i.e., the prostitute.

Besides when Christ called the disciples they were all a bunch of greedy, self-seeking individuals who would fight at the drop of hat. They changed after the cross because it was there that these "sinners" became aquatinted with God's selfless, unconditional love.

• Luke 5:29 And Levi gave a big reception for Him in his house; and there was a great crowd of tax-gatherers and other people who were reclining at the table with them. 30 And the Pharisees and their scribes began grumbling at His disciples, saying, “Why do you eat and drink with the tax-gatherers and sinners?” 31 And Jesus answered and said to them, “It is not those who are well who need a physician, but those who are sick. 32 “I have not come to call the righteous [i.e., the self-righteous] but sinners to repentance.”

[Dr. Shane]

Well Sister Jeannie, I have read through the whole thread and let me tell you since you didn't... It started out good but wondered away from the topic.

[Dr. Shane]

Ron wrote:

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

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."

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

Well said <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif" alt="" />

Bravus wrote:

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

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.

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

If the preacher did not do so, he or she should have made reference to the text in Desire of Ages. That is an ecellant chapter.

[Dr. Shane]

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

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.

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

This is why it doesn't hurt us to read respected Bible commentray when studying the Word. We can easily miss the point. I missed the same point in this same story when I first read it.

Even though it is late, I decided to read through the chapter one more time while taking my evening hot bath (even though it was above 90º here today [32º for those of you in Canada])

When Jesus said, "Seest thou this woman? I entered into thine house, thou gavest me no water for my feet: but she hath washed my feet with tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head. Thou gavest me no kiss: but this woman since the time I came in hath not ceased to kiss my feet. My head with oil thou didst not anoint: but this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment. Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little." He wasn't saying Mary's sins were great and Simon's were little. He was saying to Simon, in a way others in the room wouldn't understand, that Mary's sins were forgiven and Simon's sins were not forgiven.

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

Simon was touched by the kindness of Jesus in not openly rebuking him before the guests... Stern denunciation would have hardened Simon against repentence, but the patient admonition convinced him of his error. He saw the magnitude of the debt which he owed his Lord. His pride was humbled, he repented, and the proud Pharisee became a lowly, self-sacrificing disciple. p. 567, 568 DA

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

[Jeannieb43]

Thanks, Gregory. I can go along with you on who inserted/removed the word "Bible" and on the word "paraphrase". I don't think any of us knows whether or not the pastor in question studied from that paraphrase in preparing his sermon.

But I can't think of a better word to use in this setting than "interpolation." "To insert (material) into a text" is what my easy-reference online dictionary comes up with.

I like your EGW quotes, too, Shane....

[And all this is what makes for lively discussions.]

[Amelia]

I vote that we stop using the name Mary. I too thought that it was Mary the sister of Martha the sisters of Lazerus.

[Dr. Shane]

According to Sister White, it was Mary, sister of Lazerous. She was the woman caught in adultry. She stayed with Christ all through His trial - even when all the diciples abandoned Him. She stayed with Him at the cross and was there when they took Him down and placed Him in the tomb. She was also the first to see Christ after He rose from the dead.

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: ""To insert (material) into a text" is what my easy-reference online dictionary comes up with."

I don't have a big issue with such a useage. Larger dictionaries add additional meanings to the word, some of which I would have a problem with if those were to be you meaning.