The Magdalene Mystery.

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by Daverock70s
I think it is very important to determine whether Jesus was married (with children), whether he was homosexual, or bi-sexual. Because that would determine the policy making of the major churches today.

There is no way that Jesus who came to fullfill the law could or did break the law. These questions that have come up about such things are born out of corrupt minds and hearts. It simply cannot be grasped by some, many today, that Jesus could have been of pure enough heart to have relationships with people that didnt envolve sex of some nature.

I didn't say that Jesus had sinned. Still, the Gospels do not speak of what kind of sexual life he had.
Let me notice kindly, that the 10 commandments are very general. The commandment of adultery is interpreted by Moses in length including unthinkable penalties and so on. That is not in the 10 commandments.

If Jesus was married, not necessarily homosexual but married with a woman and probably kids, what is wrong with the 10 commandments?

The image of Jesus created much later centuries later, acks substance. The canonical gospels are tailored to meet certain demands.

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by Daverock70s
I think it is very important to determine whether Jesus was married (with children), whether he was homosexual, or bi-sexual. Because that would determine the policy making of the major churches today.

There is no way that Jesus who came to fullfill the law could or did break the law. These questions that have come up about such things are born out of corrupt minds and hearts. It simply cannot be grasped by some, many today, that Jesus could have been of pure enough heart to have relationships with people that didnt envolve sex of some nature.

I didn't say that Jesus had sinned. Still, the Gospels do not speak of what kind of sexual life he had.
Let me kindly notice with all my respect, that the 10 commandments are very general. The commandment of not committing adultery is interpreted by Moses in length according to the customs of that time. That allows divorce for example. And Moses includes unthinkable penalties. That all not found in the 10 commandments, but is Moses' own interpretation or that of his descendants who wrote it on paper. Today we have churches' own interpretation for the 10 commandments, and that varies greatly from church to church. Thus, the orthodox allow 3rd marriage in church, with communion, while the catholics do not.

If Jesus was married, (I do not defend the case he was necessarily homosexual), let say married with a devote woman probably Mary Magdalene, and probably having some kids, what is wrong with the 10 commandments? I DON'T KNOW THE TRUTH. If Magdalene's story is the correct one, the descendants should be sought in France where she, Marta and Lazarus went.

The image of Jesus is created much later, centuries later, and lacks substance of a being of flesh and blood. It fits more angelic spirit without human needs, not a real man who eats and drinks, and also who has sexual functions. (did Jesus masturbate or have wet dreams, is it a sin at al if we apply it to Jesus? no matter it was sin in certain societies in certain epochs that now we know were deeply wrong). The canonical gospels are tailored to meet certain demands for christianity to be accepted by the Roman empire. Where are the real gospels, if the apocrypha are also not the real ones. We are in the biggest crossroad because today everyone reads and can think of it. And because today we demand answers of inconvenient questions that were never asked in passed ages. And that were punishable in some ages pretty harshly. What a shame for Christianity to prove its righteousness with burning stakes with people who dared think otherwise, as well as their books. perhaps exaclty the texts we are looking for today to determine the real life of our Lord and God Jesus Christ. Thank you!

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Daverock70s

 

I was intrigued by the letter you mentioned and did a little looking. There seems to be arguments made for and against it being a forgery. That could be an interesting discussion. But I think we'll need someone else as a guide. Once a person says:

How about the canonical gospels then: aren't exactly they the "forgery" made centuries later to substitute the truth, generations after Jesus, in environment of illiteracy and persecution?

anything else they may say on the subject is extremely suspect. But in answer to your question (which seems rhetorical), No they weren't written centuries, or generations, after Jesus.

I am sorry but they were. There isn't original canonical gospel to date back to the age of the apostles. Check it for yourself.

en.wikipedia.org... Jesus bloodline

reply to post by Daverock70s

Dear Daverock70s,

Thanks for your suggestion that "I look it up." I assume you meant that if I looked it up I would find that the Gospels were written centuries after Jesus died. Strangely, that's not what I found. The latest date I could find was 180 A.D., and that came only from Archaya S. who is not considered a reliable source here or anywhere else.

There seem to be two schools of thought. They hinge upon the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. One takes the position that this was a monumental event in the history of the Jews, and even in the history of the world. The fact that none of the "historical" Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) mention it at all is evidence that they were written before the event. The opposing school claims that when Jesus talked about the event, He was commenting on the event, not prophesying it, so the Gospels all had to be written after 70 A.D. This appears to be the minority opinion.

In the approximately ten sources I looked at, most claimed that the Gospel of John was the latest, written about 90 A.D., and the other three were written between 50 and 70 A.D. Here is just one of the sites I checked. If you want more, I'd be happy to give them to you.
carm.org...

Thanks again for encouraging me to look it up.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by Daverock70s

Dear Daverock70s,

I learned a lot from checking into your earlier post, so I thought I'd look at this one as well.

en.wikipedia.org... Jesus bloodline

I went to your source and read this at the beginning of the article:

A Jesus bloodline is a hypothetical sequence of lineal descendants of the historical Jesus and Mary Magdalene, or some other woman, usually portrayed as his wife or a hierodule. Differing and contradictory versions of a Jesus bloodline hypothesis have been proposed by numerous books, websites, and films of non-fiction and fiction in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, which have almost all been dismissed as works of pseudohistory and conspiracy theory. According to a vast majority of professional historians and scholars from related fields, there is no historical, biblical, apocryphal, archaeological, genealogical, or genetic evidence which supports this hypothesis.

I can only assume that when you wrote "Jesus bloodline," you were saying there isn't any.

Thanks again for encouraging me to look things up.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by Aleister

Originally posted by resoe26

Originally posted by Aleister
reply to post by Kantzveldt

 

You found some pretty hot Mary Magdalene's there. S&F for that alone - but you've made a very good OP and brought up some interesting points (pun intended). I think the Dan Brown book and all the publicity for Mary Mag. that came with and after that have propelled her into the top tier of feminist icons, and she'll be a new meme for awhile. I like the skull emphasis, interesting connections, and it's a symbol of Mary M I've not noticed or remember reading about before. Probably have come across it, but all the pics of the artwork in one place make the symbol of the skull and its connection to her clear, thanks for collecting these.

edit on 29-3-2013 by Aleister because: (no reason given)

eeek feminists....

Lets not forget that Mary Magdalene was a harlot to begin with.
I wonder how much harlots cost back in those days......?

No, not a harolot or prostitute, you've bought into the catholic myth which was an attempt to marginalize her and her time with Jesus and major role as a female apostle afterwards. At least according to biblical expert Dan Brown.

And not just Dan Brown. Real biblical experts agree on the fact that this was a falsehood, which is perpetuated to this day.

Re-read the gospels and re-read carefully. You will see that Mary M is nowhere named explicitly as a prostitute. A prostitute is mentioned in text, in proximity to a mention of Mary, which is supposedly where this confusion arises. Some have even speculated that it wasn't so much confusion as purposeful obfuscation on the part of the church, in order to diminish the role of this important female apostle.

Originally posted by iwilliam
Re-read the gospels and re-read carefully. You will see that Mary M is nowhere named explicitly as a prostitute. A prostitute is mentioned in text, in proximity to a mention of Mary, which is supposedly where this confusion arises. Some have even speculated that it wasn't so much confusion as purposeful obfuscation on the part of the church, in order to diminish the role of this important female apostle.

And no less interesting, that when the Roman church redacted the accusations, made by Pope Gregory, in 1969, they did so incredibly discretely. So discretely in fact, that no other branches of Christianity outside of the Roman Church are seemingly aware of it, and therefore, they still describe Mary Magdalene as a 'fallen woman' or in words to that effect.

reply to post by KilgoreTrout

This is not an attack, objection, or criticism. I'm just looking for some info.

And no less interesting, that when the Roman church redacted the accusations, made by Pope Gregory, in 1969, they did so incredibly discretely.

I know that in '69 they changed the Missal and moved the feast days around, but I hadn't heard of changes in their understanding of Mary Magdalene. Could you point me toward a source or two?

Thanks.

Text I do think that the early Christians and the people who made it into a Religion missed out Magdalene or tarnished her because she is a woman, the bible and other religious texts speak of women like 2nd class citizens and only in the past 100 years or so have women been able to try and be equal to men. (as they should be)

reply to post by boymonkey74


Yep, you sound just like the average American male, if you are a male. Beat up and beat down. American men gave them their pants and cigars and cars and most of the good jobs so they might as well give them the farm too. All of this without being drafted. What happened to that part of this being equal don't you and your empty skirts understand?

If you read your bible with understanding it was God who made woman subject to man and no He did not make her equal by any stretch of your imagination. That is your imagination and the mess the US govt is in today shows me that most all of the present day screw ups are due to women being in the wrong place at the right time.

No, I don't hate women. Been married to the same fine woman for over forty years and loved her till she died. But she was a good and decent woman who knew her place as a godly woman. What you see today is a far cry from what God intended from man and woman. Re read your bible and don't try to use this corrupt culture as a pattern for decency. It does not fit the true bible.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by KilgoreTrout

 

This is not an attack, objection, or criticism. I'm just looking for some info.

And no less interesting, that when the Roman church redacted the accusations, made by Pope Gregory, in 1969, they did so incredibly discretely.

I know that in '69 they changed the Missal and moved the feast days around, but I hadn't heard of changes in their understanding of Mary Magdalene. Could you point me toward a source or two?

Thanks.

I am terribly sorry, I have only just seen this request, I apologise for my tardiness.

The correction was published in The Roman Missal on 3rd April 1969 (under Pope Paul VI) and clarified that they recognised that Mary Magdalene and the 'sinful woman' Mary of Betany were seperate entities, rather than one and the same as had been put forth by Pope Gregory in 591. It is merely a change in the verses that are used which highlights their individuality, not an out and out acknowledgement that Gregory was incorrect, because to do that would be to admit that he was fallible.

In 1969, during the papacy of Paul VI, the Vatican, without commenting on Pope Gregory's reasoning,[21] implicitly rejected it by separating Luke's sinful woman, Mary of Bethany, and Mary Magdala via the Roman Missal.[22]

en.wikipedia.org...

Further reading...

www.americancatholic.org...

reply to post by Aleister

I really should read the whole thread before responding, but, can't wait.

EDIToes anyone see a hole in this theory?

It could be she was crazy and stole the skull, and everyone just let her have it to not cause a fuss. Crazy Mary, only she would steal a skull, loony tunes, let's not alert the people we know that if they happen to see her, maybe they could help get Jesus' head back to us, to be buried with his body maybe? Hah, forget it, let her have it. Crazy Mary. Who'd believe it anyway?

As mentioned already, there was a Salome with Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James at the tomb. Mark 16:1 Could this be the same Salome that Josephus links to the daughter of Herodias, who asked for the head of John the Baptist? see Mark 6:21-29 Salome

Salome with the Head of John the Baptist by Titian, c 1515

The skull being carried about could be that of John the Baptist.

reply to post by KilgoreTrout

Dear KilgoreTrout,

Thanks for the response, and there was absolutely no trouble about any small delay.

I do wonder about one thing, though.

It is merely a change in the verses that are used which highlights their individuality, not an out and out acknowledgement that Gregory was incorrect, because to do that would be to admit that he was fallible.

I didn't realize fallibility was ever at play here. Sermons aren't considered infallible, but maybe this one was special in some way?

From your source (American Catholic):

In A.D. 591 Pope St. Gregory the Great preached a sermon in which he identified as one person the New Testament figures of Mary Magdalene, the sinful woman who anointed Jesus' feet and washed them with her tears, and the Mary who was the sister of Lazarus and Martha of Bethany.

Although he was only reflecting a tradition that had gained some ground in the West (and was resisted by many of the church's early theologians), the sermon became a reference point for later scholarship, teaching and preaching in the West, Father Raymond F. Collins, a New Testament scholar at The Catholic University of America, said in an interview.

It seems more like a case of scholarly inertia than protecting the Pope's infallibillity.

Anyway, thanks a lot.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by pthena


That's my thought as well. John the Baptist was beheaded, and that's the only logical answer in my opinion.

The question then becomes, why would Mary Magdalene be carrying John's skull when she wasn't even part of the story when John was supposedly executed? Why would she carry his skull when she was supposedly in love with Jesus?

My theory is that John the Baptist was really Jesus, he was the one who was crucified. Why would they change his identity? I think it has something to do with Jesus' baptism, they couldn't have Jesus baptizing himself.

I'm thinking Jesus and his beloved disciple were actually John the Baptist and Mary Magdalene (hence her carrying her skull), and John baptizing Jesus was actually John helping his wife Mary give water birth to their baby Jesus.

I don't believe the virgin birth one bit, and I think this is a pretty good substitute in my opinion. The virgin birth scene was added in later by the pagan Romans, which is why there are so many pagan themes in that section of the story.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

why would Mary Magdalene be carrying John's skull when she wasn't even part of the story when John was supposedly executed? Why would she carry his skull when she was supposedly in love with Jesus?

Jesus got some of his disciples from John the Baptist. Mary could have been married to John.

Mary enters the story of Jesus while he's on his last trip to Jerusalem, shortly after John's death. As upset and distraught as Jesus was over John's death, Mary (if his widow) would have been more so. Maybe crazy depressed.

If Jesus was a relative (cousin) she may have sought Jesus out, or the disciples of John who had buried his body may have brought Mary to Jesus or left her with Lazarus (if Mary Mag and Mary sister of Lazarus were the same).

If Salome, daughter of Herodias, sought to return John's head to his widow, she also would have entered the story at the end.

I don't believe the virgin birth one bit, and I think this is a pretty good substitute in my opinion. The virgin birth scene was added in later by the pagan Romans, which is why there are so many pagan themes in that section of the story.

Whoever wrote the beginnings to Matthew and Luke were doing it to "prove" continuity and fulfillment of Old Testament. I'm thinking of starting a thread about Jesus actually teaching a extra-OT understanding of Kingdom of Ouronos

reply to post by Trafalgar1805


Hence the reason for St.Paul saying, "Homosexuals will never be allowed to enter Heaven".

reply to post by pthena


Or John could have kept his disciples, only his transition from being called John to Jesus within the story could be where he "gained" his own followers.

The reason I think this is because of Jesus' beloved disciple being with him at the Last Supper and crucifixion, who was actually Mary Magdalene/Mary mother of Jesus.

Mark 14
51 A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, 52 he fled naked, leaving his garment behind.

Matthew 18
2 He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. 3 And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

I think the young man and the child are actually the same person, Jesus/John's child whom he had with his beloved disciple Mary.

John 19
26 When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to her, “Woman, here is your son,” 27 and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.

In this instance, John is hanging on the cross and his "mother" is actually Mary Magdalene and the beloved disciple is his son.

I know, it's kind of convoluted, but I have my reasons for thinking this.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Something within your thoughts and suggestion makes sense. I have been forever faithful, yet forever doubting much of what we were taught. Why, for instance, did St.Joseph play such an important role in the opening lines , yet seemed to vanish as time and teaching of us - moved on. Our Lady is mentioned at all times and so too are Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, but still no mention of St.Joseph.

reply to post by steaming


Probably because Joseph never existed, he was only created in order to fit the virgin birth scenario. Just my opinion though.

Originally posted by charles1952
I didn't realize fallibility was ever at play here. Sermons aren't considered infallible, but maybe this one was special in some way?

You are possibly correct, I suppose it depends much upon the source and the interpretation of the reporter. Fallibility aside though, the homily was instructive, and that instruction was followed for several centuries, and still is. So perhaps the question should be, is why has it not been more openly corrected? If it is not a question of Gregory's infallibility as Pope, then what is the problem?