[Magdalen] Salve Regina.

[Jay Weigel]

The Orthodox bible includes what y'all call the Apocrypha. So does the
Roman Catholic one. Maybe it's the Protestants who are heretics for
chopping out some of the books '->

I'm currently working my way through "A New New Testament" by Hal Taussig,
which is a compilation of canonical/traditional and newly discovered books
with commentary. Very good, if sometimes difficult, reading. I recommend
it.

On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 5:27 PM Marion Thompson <marionwhitevale at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Sacred words, God given!  Thus, I suppose, reflecting divine guidance given
> to those making the choices.  I dunno.
>
> Marion, a pilgrim
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 4:56 PM Grace Cangialosi <gracecan at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I’m wondering why a question about who decided which books to include in
> > the Bible would be forbidden.
> > (I understand why reading Spong would have been controversial!)
> >
> > Were you just to assume that God had handed down the Bible in one piece?
> >
> > > On Aug 21, 2019, at 2:03 PM, Marion Thompson <
> marionwhitevale at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > This brings to mind an encounter I had back in the 90's with our then
> > > associate priest.  I had been reading Spong's 'Rescuing the Bible from
> > the
> > > Fundamentalists' and asked in all innocence who had decided which books
> > > should be included in the New Testament.  Whoa!  He went up one side of
> > me
> > > and down the other, that I should even think of asking such a question!
> > > And reading Spong, too!!!!!!!!!! Some years later he had retired to New
> > > England somewhere and had jumped ship and joined the ACNA.  He was a
> mad
> > > dog with  a really short fuse if one was the least bit critical of any
> > > Republican.  I found out many eyars later than he had opposed the
> > proposal
> > > that
> > >
> > >> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 1:31 PM Jay Weigel <jay.weigel at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> The "canonical New Testament" as we know it now was not accepted until
> > 367
> > >> AD, well after the time of Jesus, by which time what you are calling
> > >> "legend" (and what we Orthodox call tradition) was pretty firmly
> > accepted
> > >> by many Christians. Debates over what was and is important continue
> into
> > >> the present day, in light of comparatively recent discovery of ancient
> > >> texts (Nag Hammadi, etc.) and re-interpretation of gnostic Gospels. So
> > >> there's that.
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 5:52 AM Simon Kershaw <simon at kershaw.org.uk>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Fine -- but we should recognize that these are just legends, pious
> > >>> legends maybe, but legendary all the same.
> > >>>
> > >>> Mary's role in the story of Jesus is clear -- she was his mother, who
> > >>> gave him birth ad raised him to adulthood. She seems to have not
> > >>> entirely agreed with his preaching and healing ministry, but she was
> > >>> present at his death.
> > >>>
> > >>> And that's about it. Everything else is legend and later invention,
> or
> > >>> else was considered so unimportant that it was not recorded in the
> > >>> canonical New Testament.
> > >>>
> > >>> simon
> > >>>
> > >>>> On 2019-08-19 18:52, ME Michaud wrote:
> > >>>> There is also a tradition that she was one of the children set to
> > weave
> > >>>> the
> > >>>> curtain of the temple (the one that was rent when Jesus died). The
> > >>>> Gnostic
> > >>>> gospels are full of this stuff.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> In a world where women bore and lost children throughout their
> lives,
> > >>>> the
> > >>>> rending of the woven veil is a powerful image.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Re: Mary as described in the Book of Revelation, there are probably
> a
> > >>>> thousand images that portray her in this way, medieval, renaissance
> > and
> > >>>> even pre-raphaelite IIRC.
> > >>>> -M
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> Simon Kershaw
> > >>> simon at kershaw.org.uk
> > >>> St Ives, Cambridgeshire
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
>