Mary Magdalene & Jesus

Cochise

Priest of the cult of the Dog with the Broken Paw
Joined
Jun 17, 2011
Messages
6,711
Reaction score
9,173
Points
284
I don't understand the problem? So what if he had a wife? Gandhi and Joseph Smith had dozens.

Jesus (if he existed, which I obviously believe he did) was God in human form, supposed to have led a 'perfect' life - a 'perfect' life of the time does not exclude marriage (and presumably sex within marriage). I'm a bit of an odd sort of Christian, I've never got my head around this three in one stuff - Christ and God are to me clearly two separate entities, God and a spin-off designed to be more approachable to humankind, the 'beard in the sky' approach having failed. Which also demonstrates that God may be omnipotent but not also omniscient, at least as far as the consequences of his actions are concerned.

The fact that the Gospels all but airbrushed Mary out of existence simply suggests the writers of the gospels - some time after the events described - were already set on excluding women from the narrative - they were already engaged on setting up a male dominated power structure.

Thank God the Bible exists in many languages including our own (and in numerous mildly differing versions) - it gives us the chance to bypass any sort of privileged priesthood and try to decide for ourselves what God's actions mean. My own Church is virtually abandoned by the established clergy on cost grounds - embarrassingly for them we refused to be absorbed into a larger community from the nearest town - we meet under a lay reader now except for communion.
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,231
Reaction score
9,134
Points
284
Cochise said:
The fact that the Gospels all but airbrushed Mary out of existence simply suggests the writers of the gospels - some time after the events described - were already set on excluding women from the narrative - they were already engaged on setting up a male dominated power structure.
True. In Jesus' time, it was expected that adult men got married and fathered a family.
 

ramonmercado

CyberPunk
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
52,025
Reaction score
27,353
Points
309
Location
Eblana
I'm starting a module in Biblical Studies in TCD in January. Introduction to the New Testament and Early Christianity: texts and contexts.

Basically its part of the Bible Criticism that mainstream Christian priests are taught.

I don't expect any shockers, just a bit more about the number of and origin of the Canonical texts and the Apocrypha.
 

GNC

King-Sized Canary
Joined
Aug 25, 2001
Messages
32,019
Reaction score
19,279
Points
309
Cochise said:
I don't understand the problem? So what if he had a wife? Gandhi and Joseph Smith had dozens.
Isn't it to do with celibacy? If Christ had an active sex life, then there's no point in priests staying celibate or something.
 

Anome

Bibliomancer
Joined
May 23, 2002
Messages
5,560
Reaction score
650
Points
194
Location
Left, and to the Back
I think it's more to do with the idea of purity. Hence why Mary was a virgin, and indeed also conceived without sin. (According to Catholic doctrine. I don't think we still hold to that, but then our priests are allowed to marry. Just not each other.)

It would have implications for the celibacy of the clergy, but I suspect they'd find some reason to keep it up.
 

Cochise

Priest of the cult of the Dog with the Broken Paw
Joined
Jun 17, 2011
Messages
6,711
Reaction score
9,173
Points
284
But sex within marriage would not be a sin? The allegation is that Jesus married Mary Magdalene.

I suppose to some minds that means if he fathered a child then he would have half-divine descendent, but I don't think that makes sense - his body was human, it was his spirit that was divine. (If you believe, of course).

Of course the Roman Catholic church has (or had) a different approach, hence the divine right of kings, but that is of no interest to me as a protestant.
 

Analogue Boy

Bar 6
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
11,656
Reaction score
11,861
Points
309
ramonmercado said:
I'm starting a module in Biblical Studies in TCD in January. Introduction to the New Testament and Early Christianity: texts and contexts.

Basically its part of the Bible Criticism that mainstream Christian priests are taught.

I don't expect any shockers, just a bit more about the number of and origin of the Canonical texts and the Apocrypha.
You should research the actual source material from Ancient Egypt otherwise it doesn't make any sense.
 

Schwadevivre

Antitheist
Joined
Dec 13, 2014
Messages
556
Reaction score
343
Points
64
Location
Near Skinners Bottom
I believe the polite term in Biblical scholarship is "a fragment of a pseudepigraphic or anonymous gospel with incorporating many elements from a later tradition," Note that this fragment dated to the 4th-5th Century so is not actually canon in the first place.

The big problem is that, despite what we are told by the Church, there was never one Christianity. There were the Orthodox, Syriac, Coptic, Celtic, Nestorian, Armenian, Thomasine together with various other Gnostic and mystery cults. Even in Western Europe after the 10th Century the schismatic and heretical never really went away; in addition to the Cathars and the Templars there were the Hussites, the followers of Wycliffe. In the North the various heretical elements of the Teutonic Knights were tolerated as long as they were suppressing the pagans in Latvia and fighting the Orthodox in Russia.
 

ramonmercado

CyberPunk
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
52,025
Reaction score
27,353
Points
309
Location
Eblana
I believe the polite term in Biblical scholarship is "a fragment of a pseudepigraphic or anonymous gospel with incorporating many elements from a later tradition," Note that this fragment dated to the 4th-5th Century so is not actually canon in the first place.

The big problem is that, despite what we are told by the Church, there was never one Christianity. There were the Orthodox, Syriac, Coptic, Celtic, Nestorian, Armenian, Thomasine together with various other Gnostic and mystery cults. Even in Western Europe after the 10th Century the schismatic and heretical never really went away; in addition to the Cathars and the Templars there were the Hussites, the followers of Wycliffe. In the North the various heretical elements of the Teutonic Knights were tolerated as long as they were suppressing the pagans in Latvia and fighting the Orthodox in Russia.
I'm looking forward to my upcoming Module in TCD: Introduction to the New Testament and Early Christianity: texts and contexts.

I'll report back.
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,231
Reaction score
9,134
Points
284
You can't keep a good thread down! :p
'The Lost Gospel': The ancient manuscript that 'proves Jesus married Mary Magdalene and had children'
'We now know what the original Jesus movement looked like and the unexpected role sexuality played in it'
Professor Barrie Wilson, Simcha Jacobovic
Thursday 14 April 2016

What you are about to read is a detective story.

We have uncovered an ancient writing that is encrypted with a hidden meaning. In the process of decoding it, we’ll take you on a journey into the world of this mysterious text. What the Vatican feared—and Dan Brown only suspected—has come true. There is now written evidence that Jesus was married to Mary the Magdalene, and that they had children together.

More than this, based on the new evidence, we now know what the original Jesus movement looked like and the unexpected role sexuality played in it. We have even unraveled the politics behind the crucifixion, as well as the events and the people that took part in it.

Gathering dust in the British Library is a document that takes us into the missing years of Jesus’ life. Scholars believe that Jesus was born around 5 BC, and that he was crucified around 30AD.
But there is a huge gap in his biography. We know absolutely nothing about Jesus from the time he was eight days old (his circumcision, according to Jewish law), until he was in his early thirties. There is one exception. According to the Gospel of Luke (2:41–2:51), when he was twelve years old, Jesus traveled with his parents to Jerusalem to celebrate Passover.

That’s it. That’s all we have. Otherwise, thirty years of absolute silence.
Isn’t this incredible? Here is arguably the most influential individual in human history and we know nothing about him until after he starts his “ministry” (i.e., his public activism) at most three years before his crucifixion.
But the fact is that we simply have no information about Jesus’ early years—his upbringing, friends, schooling, or his interaction with family members. We have no knowledge of Jesus as a young adult. How did he gain access to the writings of the Hebrew Bible? Did the synagogue in Nazareth, a very small hamlet at the time, have scrolls of the Law and the Prophets? Who were his religious teachers?

How well versed was he in Hebrew, in addition to the Aramaic that we know he spoke? Did he speak Greek, the lingua franca of the Roman world? Jesus appears on the stage of history suddenly in the late 20s c.e. At this point, the mature Jesus announces the “Kingdom of God”—that is, the advent of a qualitative transformation in human history, prophesied by the Hebrew Bible, in which justice will reign upon the earth and the worship of the one true God will be universal.

But what happened to Jesus before this sudden appearance? According to the document that we uncovered, sometime during this period he became engaged, got married, had sexual relations, and produced children. Before anyone gets his/her theological back up, keep in mind that we are not attacking anyone’s theology. We are reporting on a text. Theology must follow historical fact and not the other way around. Having said this, for the moment, we are not asserting that our text is historical fact. So far, we are merely stating that the Christian Bible tells us nothing about Jesus’ early years, and that we have discovered a text that claims that he was married and fathered children.

On a purely historical level, this really shouldn’t surprise us. Marriage and children were expected of a Jewish man, then and now. If he hadn’t been married, that would have caused consternation to his family, possible scandal in the community, and the New Testament certainly would have commented on it—if for no other reason than to explain and defend Jesus’ unusual behavior. But now we have a document that claims that he was indeed married and fathered children. Not only this, our document indicates that for some of his original followers, Jesus’ marriage was the most important aspect of their theology.

This extract was published in The Independent with permission from the authors. 'The Lost Gospel' by Profeessor Barrie Wilson and Simcha Jacobovic is out now via Pegasus

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...mary-magdalene-and-had-children-a6982836.html
 

Peripart

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
6,285
Reaction score
4,715
Points
259
Blimey! There are as many 5th gospels as there are 5th Beatles!
 

ramonmercado

CyberPunk
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
52,025
Reaction score
27,353
Points
309
Location
Eblana
Mary Magdalene: Mary (Rooney Mara) is a fisherwoman, casting nets in the Sea of Galilee along with her sisters. She assists in a difficult birth, goes back to her fishing, sees a healer and his associates pass by, remarks that he must have little to do if he can preach every day. But Mary is also troubled, she doesn't want to be married off. Her erratic behaviour makes her family believe she is possessed and an exorcism is attempted. Later the healer (Joaquin Phoenix) comes to her and realises that she is not possessed.

The healer is Jesus and later Mary goes to see him preach and heal. When he restores a blind man's sight he is overwhelmed by the demanding crowd. In the background, Peter (Chiwetel Ejiofor) baptises people in the sea. Against her family's wishes Mary becomes a follower of Jesus and is baptised by him. They go on to Cana where Jesus preaches to women and Mary baptises them and some become followers. Peter is none too happy at this usurpation of his role.

This retelling of the Gospel stories is based on verses which suggest Mary was an Apostle and that other women were part of Jesus's broader following. In 2016 the Roman Catholic Church declared Mary was the Apostle of the Apostle and not a prostitute as the misogynist Pope Gregory had declared in 591.

There isn't a suggestion of a sexual relationship between the Magdalene and Jesus in this film, rather that she was the Apostle he dearly loved. The other Apostles have different views of what the mission of Jesus will result in: Peter is a zealot who hopes that the presence of Jesus in Jerusalem will result in an uprising and the driving out of the Romans. Judas believes that the dead will rise in the new Kingdom and he will be reunited with his dead wife and child.

Phoenix looks very much a Western Jesus but his worn countenance is that of an austere Essene. He foresees his own end, when he cures the afflicted or raises the dead he is physically and mentally drained. When he reaches the Temple he doesn't drive out the money-changers, instead he attacks the priests who are selling animals for sacrifice, Phoenix exudes righteous anger. Mara is quiet but intense, it is more difficult fora woman to take a leading role as an Apostle but Rooney convinces in this role.

In particular cinematographer Greg Fraser makes great use of shadow and fires, the flames being reminiscent of how Jules Breton brought blaes to life in his paintings. The screenplay by Helen Edmundson and Philippa Goslett (no crdits for Matthew Mark, Luke and John) is revisionist in the best sense of the word. Garth Davis as director has put together a new narrative of the Nazarene and Magdalene which won't be to everyone's taste but even an agnostic can find it enthralling. 8.5/10.
 

Xanatic*

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Mar 10, 2015
Messages
4,411
Reaction score
4,760
Points
159
To me the idea of Mary Magdalene being a prostitute, was that it showed how Jesus was willing to forgive and give everybody a second chance. Without being a reformed prostitute, her character sort of loses it's point.
 

ramonmercado

CyberPunk
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
52,025
Reaction score
27,353
Points
309
Location
Eblana
To me the idea of Mary Magdalene being a prostitute, was that it showed how Jesus was willing to forgive and give everybody a second chance. Without being a reformed prostitute, her character sort of loses it's point.
Or it could be seen as a misogynist pope undermining the role of women in the early church. Her character as an actual follower/disciple of Christ makes quite an important point.
 

Kingsize Wombat

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
996
Reaction score
1,266
Points
159
Or it could be seen as a misogynist pope undermining the role of women in the early church. Her character as an actual follower/disciple of Christ makes quite an important point.
If we assume Jesus and Mary the Magdalene were historical figures (and not everyone agrees with that), then Mary really got a raw deal here.

A lot of people think "Prostitute" when they hear her name, and yet, the Bible doesn't call her that at all!

Then there are all those insinuations that she may have had a physical relationship with Jesus. And once again, there's nothing in the actual texts to support that.

The most interesting part about her is that she is not described in any way relating to a male figure ("wife of" or "daughter of"), as would be the custom of the day.

That makes it more likely that she was an independent, possibly older woman. She may have even paid the bills for Jesus, so to speak.

That takes all the sex out of it (unless Jesus liked a Cougar), but it makes far more sense than that old Catholic Sinner / Saint dichotomy.
 

MorningAngel

Justified & Ancient
Joined
May 14, 2015
Messages
1,424
Reaction score
2,163
Points
159
This is my problem with the Bible. Even if it’s true it’s been edited and changed so much over the years and people take it word for word.

I saw a very interesting programme a while back about the female disciples. I think it was with Mary Beard. How they have been written out because we can’t have Woman thinking they are important and mean something.

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-...e-a-timely-new-take-on-the-ultimate-boys-club

I looked up on Wiki the Gospel of Mary, some interesting stuff there too. Especially Fortean related when speaking of the soul.

I think it’s horrible that Mary is painted as a whore when she could quite possibly be one of the most important disciplines. A fact that really pissed Peter off in the GoM. ‘Peter appears to be offended by the discovery that Jesus selected Mary above the other disciples to interpret his teachings.’
 

Attachments

AlchoPwn

Public Service is my Motto.
Joined
Nov 2, 2017
Messages
2,561
Reaction score
4,067
Points
154
Yeah, some of us still don't accept the historicity of Jesus. The Docetists said Jesus was an allegory, and they were the first sect of Christians in 190 B.C. It is a bit pointless talking about Gospel of Mary Magdalene when there was no Jesus in the first place.
 

Naughty_Felid

kneesy earsy nosey
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
8,592
Reaction score
11,540
Points
294
Yeah, some of us still don't accept the historicity of Jesus. The Docetists said Jesus was an allegory, and they were the first sect of Christians in 190 B.C. It is a bit pointless talking about Gospel of Mary Magdalene when there was no Jesus in the first place.
I always thought there was a historical guy but I always doubted he had superpowers. He was just one of many hawkers at that time selling a spiritual product to ease the woes of life.

He was considered a pain in the arse and was dealt with. Tacitus was pretty clear that Christus was a person and he would have had access to the records.
 

AlchoPwn

Public Service is my Motto.
Joined
Nov 2, 2017
Messages
2,561
Reaction score
4,067
Points
154
"... if there were no jesus ..."
No. We have extensive records from the Roman occupation of Palestine, including all the executions, and there is only one candidate for a possible Jesus, and it is dubious at best, being Joseph the Magician who was stoned to death for blasphemy. Remember that Yeshua is the same name as Joseph and Yusup. There is also the huge problem of Josephus being an Essene and not knowing who Jesus was (we must ignore the fraudulent insertion of the credo introduced later by the church into some of the documents). Some have gone so far as to suggest that Josephus was Jesus, while others mention the old Joseph ben David who died at Masada as a possible Jesus. Still we have the issue that the Docetists existed well before Jesus, as a Judaised branch of Serapist Therapeuts who insisted that their story of Jesus was entirely allegorical, and that for Jesus to be made flesh would be a terrible blasphemy, specifically against the holy spirit, which is the ultimate sin.

Let us not open the can of worms that is the fringe Jewish belief that Jesus is the avatar of Satan sent to test their faith. Strangely enough we actually have more evidence for the existence of an historical Santa than we do for an historical Jesus.
 
Last edited:

Ermintruder

Delineated by a professional cryptozoologist
Joined
Jul 13, 2013
Messages
5,912
Reaction score
8,948
Points
284
Tacitus was pretty clear that Christus was a person
Apparently this is quite contentious, in that Christus/Christos/Christ is arguably an honorific position, not a person ie the term is clearly analogous to messiah.

A (deliberately-chosen) parallel for this status nomenclature could be the use of the name 'Caeser'- in fact, it has been postulated that the Jewish sect sometimes known as Christianity was a political construct, with "JC" at its head (as in Julius Caeser.....hence the origins of the Holy Roman Catholic church).
 

AlchoPwn

Public Service is my Motto.
Joined
Nov 2, 2017
Messages
2,561
Reaction score
4,067
Points
154
Apparently this is quite contentious, in that Christus/Christos/Christ is arguably an honorific position, not a person ie the term is clearly analogous to messiah. A (deliberately-chosen) parallel for this status nomenclature could be the use of the name 'Caeser'- in fact, it has been postulated that the Jewish sect sometimes known as Christianity was a political construct, with "JC" at its head (as in Julius Caeser.....hence the origins of the Holy Roman Catholic church).
Christ isn't a surname. It specifically means "the anointed". This title was given to the god Serapis, as he had a little vase on his head for putting oil into as an act of veneration. We see parallels in the anointing of Kings in medieval France with chrism from the Holy Ampulla. If, in 200 BC you spoke of "the Christ", everyone would assume you meant Serapis. Serapis also had regional religious leaders called Bishops. Better yet, the first Bishop of Antioch was a Docetist called Serapeion.
 

henry

still speeding
Joined
Oct 23, 2005
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
1,246
Points
15
so thats an if then ...
 

Tribble

Killjoy Boffin
Joined
Apr 21, 2015
Messages
2,992
Reaction score
6,873
Points
209
Looking closely at a digital image of Papyrus 66 - generally thought to be the oldest near-complete manuscript of the Gospel of John - Elizabeth Schrader noticed something odd.
The word ‘Maria,’ (or Mary) had been altered, with the Greek iota symbol – the ‘i’ –scratched out and replaced with a ‘th’ that changed the name to ‘Martha.’ And in a later verse, a woman’s name was replaced with ‘the sisters.’


https://today.duke.edu/2019/06/mary...ry-magdalene-downplayed-new-testament-scribes
 

Mythopoeika

I am a meat popsicle
Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
44,032
Reaction score
35,981
Points
309
Location
Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar
Wonder when that was changed? And did they do it to write Mary out?
 
Top