From: Nigel B. Mitchell <>
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian
Date: Wednesday, 10 March 1999 7:50
Subject: Re: Questions. Any Answers?



I wrote:
>>... what were all those women doing
>>following Jesus and the disciples around (Matt 27:55-6, Mark 15:41,
>>Luke 23:27,49,55) if they were not the wives of Jesus and the
>>disciples? 

Able:
> You are not serious.
>This is the Monty Python show.

I am serious. What were the women doing? 
Were they the wives of Jesus and his disciples?
Were they their mothers?
Were they 'camp followers' (ie prostitutes)?
Were they disciples themselves, and if so, why are they mentioned
separately?

Why, whenever the women are names, is Mary Magdalene always the
first menthioned?

>>The thing that neds to be explained is why Mary took responsibility,
>>and expected Jesus to do something about it. It would make sense if it
>>was Jesus' wedding. It would also make sense if Jesus and his
>>disciples were gatecrashers and/or heavy drinkers, and therefore the
>>cause of the wine running out. If it was neither of these things, why
>>did Mary and Jesus feel they ought to act?
>
> What do you understand to be the significance of the first miracle
>Nigel?

Jesus showed his divine power, gave blessing to a celebration,
and provided a metaphor of God's abundance. These things are some
of the elements in the significance of the miracle. 
Having said that, the historical questions about what happened,
and why, as I have raised them above, remain.
 
>>I think that you miss the point of Jesus' teaching on marriage, Chris.
>>He is talking about committment and promise-keeping (this is not a
>>reference to the movement of that name). If a promise and committment
>>is made before God and/or other witnesses, it should be kept. There
>>are no extenuating circumstances for going back on your word, other
>>than _maybe_ if the other party to the covenant reneges. That is how I
>>have always understood Jesus' teaching on marriage.


>>The $64,000 question for Able, or anyone else who wishes to promote a
>>"family values" type Christianity, is this:
>>
>>Can you find one "traditional nuclear family" (ie 1 mum, 1 dad,
>> 2+ kids concieved and born after the marriage) in the Bible?
>
>Why would I seek to.?

Because, "Biblical family values", as preached by the religious
right in the USA and many fundamentalist groups in this country,
are not based on the bible. They are based on a western, middle
class view of "family" which has only been prevalent since the
industrial revolution, and is now in rapid decline.

> But Nigel, we are the Church, tradition is the Church.

Hooray!
By George, he's got it.

Given that  "biblical family values" are not based on the BIble,
how is the church going to respond to the changing nature of
families and society today?

cheers

N+

Nigel B. Mitchell