Mary Magdalene - Wife of Jesus ?

[comic boy]

Martin Luther appears to have thought so for a start, given that most secular historians agree that Jesus must have had a wife and the fact that Mary is mentioned often in the New Testament.....Discuss

[comic boy]

move this to chatter please

[Curmudgeonx]

This thread is already full of Fail.

[lackattack]

Moved to Chatter Box

[MeDeFe]

Martin Luther appears to have thought so for a start, given that most secular historians agree that Jesus must have had a wife and the fact that Mary is mentioned often in the New Testament.....Discuss

Who cares?

[jay_a2j]

No.

[GabonX]

Because history is based on what people speculate "must" have happened.

I have no idea whether or not Jesus got married and neither do you. Frankly, it's irrelevant.

[jay_a2j]

"the Church" is the bride of Christ.

[tzor]

Ah the whole "Holy Grail" theory, the fundamental secret principle behind the DRoK (Divine Right of Kings) and the mythical divine bloodline of rotalty. If I recall correctly the story has her going to Southern France. It's such a lovely story ... if you are European Royalty.

At at least it's better tha making Mary Madgenine a guy as was suggested in one of the offbeat Gnostic Gospels. (Which is mild compared to the Gay Jesus Gnostic Gospel, oh those twelve were always up to something.)

"The disciple Jesus Loved," in John's Gospel was a code word for John himself. Technically the people who were penning the Gospel weren't John but they were getting a lot of source material from the very old Apostle at the time. He was probably barely a kid at the time of the Crucifixion, one of the reasons why he was mutually "given" to his mother Mary at the foot of the cross. (Also to allow a connection as to why he was the only apostle at the crucifixion and why others would say that there were no apostles there; because he was barely an adult at the time.)

The real question would be why would the church, especially the early church supress it? I mean why would Peter who was married supress it? Why would Paul, who was single and who reccomended it, but also supported Peter's married state supress it?

[InkL0sed]

To screw with comic boy's head.

[MeDeFe]

To screw with comic boy's head.

A very worthy reason.

[comic boy]

Ah the whole "Holy Grail" theory, the fundamental secret principle behind the DRoK (Divine Right of Kings) and the mythical divine bloodline of rotalty. If I recall correctly the story has her going to Southern France. It's such a lovely story ... if you are European Royalty.

At at least it's better tha making Mary Madgenine a guy as was suggested in one of the offbeat Gnostic Gospels. (Which is mild compared to the Gay Jesus Gnostic Gospel, oh those twelve were always up to something.)

"The disciple Jesus Loved," in John's Gospel was a code word for John himself. Technically the people who were penning the Gospel weren't John but they were getting a lot of source material from the very old Apostle at the time. He was probably barely a kid at the time of the Crucifixion, one of the reasons why he was mutually "given" to his mother Mary at the foot of the cross. (Also to allow a connection as to why he was the only apostle at the crucifixion and why others would say that there were no apostles there; because he was barely an adult at the time.)

The real question would be why would the church, especially the early church supress it? I mean why would Peter who was married supress it? Why would Paul, who was single and who reccomended it, but also supported Peter's married state supress it?

Why would an early Pope insinuate she was a prostitute ( a bizarre claim with no evidence )
and the Catholic church perpuate this myth for 1300 years ? The church has supressed much over the years, if you want an answer to your question then you might ask them.

[comic boy]

To screw with comic boy's head.

A very worthy reason.

Yes my head has been screwed with a lot recently, think I need to get back on the coke !

[daddy1gringo]

Thought I'd copy and paste the end of my latest post in the "Jesus and Lucifer" thread. I think it's relevant here.

Next, with regard to the "Gospels" that were "ignored", I realize that Dan Brown has become the suppository of wisdom on all things Biblical and spiritual, but do you actually know anything about these Gnostic Gospels, or about the council where the Bible we know was cannonized?

Once again, books could be written on the details, but the council made their decisions by legitimate standards. It is abundantly clear that there are certain writings that were regarded as "Holy Scripture" by those who actually learned from Jesus and from those immediate followers. It is also clear, and admitted even by those who try to claim that the "other gospels" are just as legitimate, that they were not even written until many years later.

They also present a "God" and a "Jesus" very different from the ones of the actual Gospels. For example the "God" of these Gnostic Gospels is so stuck up that he would never have created this imperfect world with scumbags like you and me in it, or had anything to do with it. That is very different the God of the Gospels. My God weeps over his children, He became one of us, got his feet dirty, went to the outcasts, and died a criminal's death.

[tzor]

Why would an early Pope insinuate she was a prostitute ( a bizarre claim with no evidence ) and the Catholic church perpuate this myth for 1300 years ? The church has supressed much over the years, if you want an answer to your question then you might ask them.

A lot of that had to do with Marian Mashing, the attempt to tie a number of different Mary's into the same person. Here's a quote from Wiki, not the best source but it's the fastest I could find that covers Catholic/Orthodox/Protestant perdpectives:

Tradition as early as the third century (Hippolytus, in his Commentary on Song of Songs) identifies Mary Magdalene with Mary of Bethany and with the woman sinner who anointed Jesus' feet[4]:

"And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster box of ointment, and stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment."[5]
Though the woman remains unnamed, she has been identified with Mary of Bethany, the sister of Martha and the resurrected Lazarus (Luke 10:38–42 and John 11:1–2), as John 11:1–2 says:

Now there was a certain man sick, named Lazarus, of Bethania, of the town of Mary and Martha her sister. And Mary was she that anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair: whose brother Lazarus was sick.

The identification of Mary Magdalene with Mary of Bethany and "the woman who was a sinner" is reflected in an influential sermon Pope Gregory I gave in 591, which said: "She whom Luke calls the sinful woman, whom John calls Mary [of Bethany], we believe to be the Mary from whom seven devils were ejected according to Mark."

Though Gregory's identification of all three women as the same Mary was generally accepted in the West, the Catholic Church celebrates Mary Magdalene on her feast of 22 July as the woman of that name "to whom Christ appeared after his resurrection, not as the sister of Saint Martha nor as the sinful woman whose sins the Lord forgave (Lk 7:36-50)."[6] The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1910 also stated that "there is no suggestion of an identification of the three persons (the 'sinner', Mary Magdalene, and Mary of Bethany)." Eastern Orthodox Christians distinguish them all as three different persons: Mary Magdalene, Mary of Bethany (whom the Orthodox commemorate on 4 June, together with her sister Martha), and the unnamed "woman who was a sinner" of Luke 7:36-50. Protestants mostly reject all these identifications, except for Seventh-day Adventists, who consider the three women to be the same. They also believe that Jesus was the one who cast the seven demons out of her.[citations needed]

Mary had been looked upon as a great sinner, but Christ knew the circumstances that had shaped her life. (…) It was He who had lifted her from despair and ruin. Seven times she had heard His rebuke of the demons that controlled her heart and mind. (…) It was Mary who sat at His feet and learned of Him. It was Mary who poured upon His head the precious anointing oil, and bathed His feet with her tears. Mary stood beside the cross, and followed Him to the sepulcher. Mary was first at the tomb after His resurrection. It was Mary who first proclaimed a risen Saviour.[7]

They believe she’s mentioned differently in the passages that talk about a woman anointing Jesus’ feet in Simon’s house (Matthew 26:6-13; Mark 14:3-9; Luke 7:36-50; John 12:1-8), in order to reflect the change of character, "distinguishing her" from the Mary that she was before[8]. It wouldn’t be the first time a Bible character is mentioned differently in order to reflect a change of character (e.g Saul that became Paul).

[Juan_Bottom]

Between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Vaticans policy of edit, lock away------I say yes.

[comic boy]

Thought I'd copy and paste the end of my latest post in the "Jesus and Lucifer" thread. I think it's relevant here.

Next, with regard to the "Gospels" that were "ignored", I realize that Dan Brown has become the suppository of wisdom on all things Biblical and spiritual, but do you actually know anything about these Gnostic Gospels, or about the council where the Bible we know was cannonized?

Once again, books could be written on the details, but the council made their decisions by legitimate standards. It is abundantly clear that there are certain writings that were regarded as "Holy Scripture" by those who actually learned from Jesus and from those immediate followers. It is also clear, and admitted even by those who try to claim that the "other gospels" are just as legitimate, that they were not even written until many years later.

They also present a "God" and a "Jesus" very different from the ones of the actual Gospels. For example the "God" of these Gnostic Gospels is so stuck up that he would never have created this imperfect world with scumbags like you and me in it, or had anything to do with it. That is very different the God of the Gospels. My God weeps over his children, He became one of us, got his feet dirty, went to the outcasts, and died a criminal's death.

Hello
Set answers to cover all eventualities,haven't we been here before

[tzor]

Set answers to cover all eventualities,haven't we been here before

I thought that potted plant in the corner looked familiar.

[comic boy]

Tzor

Oddly enough I came upon that Wiki entry a few days ago which is what got me thinking, it seems to me that your explanation doesnt quite add up. Now it seems reasonable to assume that Mary was both a women of some substance and particularly close to Jesus, she was a major character in the story not an extra with a walk on part only so its not plausible to me that she would have got jumbled in with others. Of course it may have been the case that she was fairly insignificant and forgetable but that would tend to contradict the gospels more than a fraction. What is certain is that 1500 years ago there was more evidence available one way or another than there is now and I doubt she was portrayed in a bad light purely by accident.
Incidently whilst I realise that Dan Browns popularity must frighten a great deal of you ( I dont mean you Tzor ) you have to realise that his book was faction , its simply a novel that uses a speculative historical hypothesis. Anybody taking it literaly would be as misguided as those who insist that other similar works are accurate beyond reproach.

[Backglass]

"the Church" is the bride of Christ.

So jay..Why not use your 9/11 way of thinking on this as well?

A lot of people have a lot of evidence. Surely your not just going to dismiss it out of hand just because someone in authority told you so?

But this is different...isn't it jay.

[Juan_Bottom]

"the Church" is the bride of Christ.

So jay..Why not use your 9/11 way of thinking on this as well?

A lot of people have a lot of evidence. Surely your not just going to dismiss it out of hand just because someone in authority told you so?

But this is different...isn't it jay.

You know... You'll never 'convert' him if he's always on the defensive. He isn't gonna associate anything positive with atheism.

[Thezzaruz]

given that most secular historians agree that Jesus must have had a wife and the fact that Mary is mentioned often in the New Testament.....

Yes I would expect him to have had a wife and probably children too. If Mary is that wife and if any children where still living at the time when he runs around with his disciples I don't know or care about.

The only credibility of all such stories is the fact that, to my mind, the vatikan (and everyone tied to it) are the least credible source out there...

[joecoolfrog]

"the Church" is the bride of Christ.

So jay..Why not use your 9/11 way of thinking on this as well?

A lot of people have a lot of evidence. Surely your not just going to dismiss it out of hand just because someone in authority told you so?

But this is different...isn't it jay.

You know... You'll never 'convert' him if he's always on the defensive. He isn't gonna associate anything positive with atheism.

Its not a question of converting people like Jay, it is simply to show what utter hypocrites they are so others may benefit from the insight.

[Backglass]

You know... You'll never 'convert' him if he's always on the defensive. He isn't gonna associate anything positive with atheism.

Who's converting? I just love jumping up and down around his house of cards and watching him scramble.

[tzor]

Yes I would expect him to have had a wife and probably children too. If Mary is that wife and if any children where still living at the time when he runs around with his disciples I don't know or care about.

But if he did have a wife and children, what is the thing with his mother at the crucifixion scene? The notion of "giving" his mother to John and vice versa? Couldn't his wife take care of his mother? There are more things that just don't make sense if we assume that Jesus was married. (Including his comments that he was more or less "homeless," as in "The Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.") References to Peter being married abounds, Jesus stays at Peter's house, Paul mentions this and so forth, but no reference to Jesus's bride.