man-made woman

[flower_ballet]

This verse of the Gospel of Thomas always intrigued me. I know the historical background, I know it's most probably a gnostic inspired philosophy - with female representing evil/earth/body and male representing good/heaven/soul (like yin/yang) - but none the less its wording fascinates me.
_____

114. Simon Peter said to them: "Let Mary go away

Comments

[catchingspirit]

*twitch* Must admit I've never been a fan of the gnostic gospels, even academically. And while it's an interesting quote, taken out of context it's not much more than an interesting quote. (Not to say it isn't worth quoting IN other contexts, but I don't think it can really be used to say 'all women should ideally identify as androgynous'.)

The specific wording does make me think of the otokoyaku though. XD

[flower_ballet]

Gnosticism always fascinated me - not because I'm a fan of the philosophy it represents, but because I understand why it became such a strong current in early Christianity.

I'm not saying that what the author of this quote meant was "let all women identify as androgynous", but I do believe that in a practical interpretative sense, such a meaning can be seen in its wording. The Scriptures are more than historical context - they are living words that are meant to be applied to the lives of believers and this quote, apocrypha or not, gnostic or not, makes room for an interpretation that invites a group or people inside that have for too long been deemed outsiders to Christianity. The gays, the transgendered, the transsexual.

And yes. I very specifically thought of the otokoyaku as well. ;) Cross-dressers would love this, I'm sure.

[catchingspirit]

It irritates me mostly because of the rush of renewed interest while The daVinci Code was coming out. I mean, it was probably good people were delving into Church history more finally and such, but I hated the presentation of "SEE THESE NEW SECRET THINGS THE CHURCH DOESN'T WANT YOU TO KNOW?!!"

Yeeeeah, no. Those texts were highly public in their day, and rejected for various reasons back then (and to be honest, I believe the reasons are pretty obvious with most gnostic texts, although some definitely seem to have some valuable things to say even if they weren't fit into canon). There's no big conspiracy to hide them.

So my beef really has nothing to do with what you're talking about and getting at. XD

I agree that scripture is living and relevant today, but I think historical context is needed to understand how they apply today. Take the example of many teachings about women. Several were actually related to the fact Christians did give women a bit more respect and even freedom than the culture at large and how to deal with

[flower_ballet]

Ugh. >_< I hate The Da Vinci Code. I read it back when it was really big and I do think it's a well-told story. But it's nothing more. It's a piece of well-written (well, maybe not prime literature, but still) fiction. The entire idea of people applying the big conspiracy of that novel into today's Bible studies just bugs the hell out of me - we agree on that.

I also agree that if you take the synoptic Gospels - well, the Gospels as a whole - Jesus is very inclusive of women. However, the tone that is struck in some of the Pauline letters and especially in the Deutero-Pauline letters is what leads up to the view the Catholic church had on women and eventually resulted in the approach to women that has bloomed in our society ever since. A patriarchal view that we've only in recent years begun to work with. Not Jesus' intention, surely - but that doesn't change what actually happenedAnd... well, gnosticism is interesting at the same level that many of the other Greek and Latin philosophical schools are in connection to the historical

[queennepy]

So I think Jesus is basically saying "Male or female, it don't mattah when it comes to who will enter mah kingdom so stfu, kthx!" <3

edit 'cause I said Jesus twice.

[flower_ballet]

This.

♥