Question on Jesus & Mary Magdalen

[D.C.]

I have been wondering and thinking about this for awhile now. I know that Catholic dogma says that Mary was a prostitute and was the prototype for the women who sinned and repented. But I see no evidence in the bible that supports that belief (granted I havent read every verse in the bible). From my readings (the bible and other theological works) I have the feeling that Mary and Jesus shared a very special relationship. I have also read other books that propose that Mary gave birth to a child fathered by Jesus. I for one tend to feel that this hypothesis is could be true. Given the historical time frame and that we dont hear about Jesus until he is in is 30's, I find it very unlikely that he would of remained single and childless. It is much more reasonable that he was married and had a family before God called him to begin his ministry.

[AVmetro]

Today @ 08:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=86504#post86504)
D.C.:

I have been wondering and thinking about this for awhile now. I know that Catholic dogma says that Mary was a prostitute and was the prototype for the women who sinned and repented. But I see no evidence in the bible that supports that belief (granted I havent read every verse in the bible). From my readings (the bible and other theological works) I have the feeling that Mary and Jesus shared a very special relationship. I have also read other books that propose that Mary gave birth to a child fathered by Jesus. I for one tend to feel that this hypothesis is could be true. Given the historical time frame and that we dont hear about Jesus until he is in is 30's, I find it very unlikely that he would of remained single and childless. It is much more reasonable that he was married and had a family before God called him to begin his ministry.

I'm not a Catholic nor do I know enough concerning your question in order to answer it.

On your held view - are you LDS?

-God bless-

[D.C.]

@ Ironmetro

No, I am not LDS. I am Christian and attend a non-denominational church (Heartland Vineyard Church).

I read allot and in my readings and taking the historical culture of the holy land into account for that time frame, I find it highly unlikely that Jesus woud have remained single and without a family. To be single and without famiy in that time period would of made someone stand out and they would of been viewed with suspicsion by their piers when everyone else was marrying and having children usually before the age of 20. In the bible their are references to the relationship between Mary and Jesus (again I have not read the entire bible) and from what I can gather they were extremely close and intimate. The bible tells us that Jesus began his ministrie at the age of 30, but we know almost nothing of the years preceding that. The only references to the bible that I know of are the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books, which were cut out of the bible by the vatican. There is are some reference to the fact that after Jesus's crucifixtion, that Mary Magdalen and Joseph of Aramathia (not sure on spelling) went to what is present day France with what was termed as the Sang Royal or the royal blood. It is known that Jesus was a lineal descendant of King David of Israel, so the royal blood that Mary may have taken to France could of been an offspring of Jesus. But then again it could just be my overactive mind talking.

[AVmetro]

Today @ 12:59 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=86689#post86689)
D.C.:

@ Ironmetro

No, I am not LDS. I am Christian and attend a non-denominational church (Heartland Vineyard Church).

Thank you. I was simply curious as I believe this to be one of their teachings. Only they include both women as being His wives, if I'm right. :smile:

I read allot and in my readings and taking the historical culture of the holy land into account for that time frame, I find it highly unlikely that Jesus woud have remained single and without a family.

I wouldn't think that Christ would feel compelled to conform to society in those areas. Being the Messiah and all.


To be single and without famiy in that time period would of made someone stand out and they would of been viewed with suspicsion by their piers when everyone else was marrying and having children usually before the age of 20.

See above. I would say that Christ "stood out" quite a bit during His ministry without regret. Conforming to the image viewed highly by His peers ran a distant second to the will of the Father. Now as for remaining "single" being the "will of the Father" that is something I would have to think on if demonstrable. Anyone familar with anti-Mormon apologetics could probably provide the common arguments against Christ being a married man if you were interested in seeing both sides of the issue.

In the bible their are references to the relationship between Mary and Jesus (again I have not read the entire bible) and from what I can gather they were extremely close and intimate.

This is the same method certain liberals use to come to the conclusion that Christ was a homosexual. E.g. His relationship with the Apostle John. Needless to say, I disagree with that notion.

The bible tells us that Jesus began his ministrie at the age of 30, but we know almost nothing of the years preceding that.

We can look to Luke where Christ, as a child in the temple, calls God "my Father." Something which echos Jn5:18 etc. where Christ is accused of blasphemy for this very claim. This at least implies strongly that Jesus knew of His purpose in life. But as I stated in the above, in order to view the arguments against Christ's 'being married' you have to turn to someone familar with anti-LDS apologetics.

The only references to the bible that I know of are the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books, which were cut out of the bible by the vatican.

What books are you speaking of specifically? I have an idea of what you talking about, but specifics elude me.

There is are some reference to the fact that after Jesus's crucifixtion, that Mary Magdalen and Joseph of Aramathia (not sure on spelling) went to what is present day France with what was termed as the Sang Royal or the royal blood. It is known that Jesus was a lineal descendant of King David of Israel, so the royal blood that Mary may have taken to France could of been an offspring of Jesus. But then again it could just be my overactive mind talking.

Sounds interesting.

-God bless-

[KingDavid8]

Today @ 12:59 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=86689#post86689)
D.C.:

To be single and without famiy in that time period would of made someone stand out and they would of been viewed with suspicsion by their piers when everyone else was marrying and having children usually before the age of 20.


Obviously, Jesus was hardly an average person. I doubt He would have done something against His nature just to make Himself look good in the eyes of others. It was His destiny to begin His ministry when He was around 30 (probably closer to 35, actually), and I'd say His having to abandon his wife and children in order to have it would have been an unfortunate event. It's more likely God would lead Him not to have a family in the first place.

In the bible their are references to the relationship between Mary and Jesus (again I have not read the entire bible) and from what I can gather they were extremely close and intimate.

My feeling from the Bible was that Mary was probably in love with Jesus, but Jesus wasn't in love with her (He loved her like He loves everyone, of course, but not in the romantic sense). His meeting with her after the resurrection especially signifies that for me.

I know some skeptics have argued that the Gospel authors knew that Jesus was married, but didn't mention this because His marriage somehow conflicted with His being the pure, sinless Messiah we all know and love. But if there was such a conflict, then why on Earth did they think He WAS the messiah?

David

[Carl Smuda]

D.C.,
what was the name of that book?
Carl
:read:

[Socrates]

DC:The only references to the bible that I know of are the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books, which were cut out of the bible by the vatican. Are you serious? It was the Vatican that put them IN!!There is are some reference to the fact that after Jesus's crucifixtion, that Mary Magdalen and Joseph of Aramathia (not sure on spelling) went to what is present day France with what was termed as the Sang Royal or the royal blood. It is known that Jesus was a lineal descendant of King David of Israel, so the royal blood that Mary may have taken to France could of been an offspring of Jesus. But then again it could just be my overactive mind talking.Or some repressed memories of reading garbage like The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail or Bloodline of the Holy Grail (see review www.tektonics.org/LG.BHG_1852308702.html ). The Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books can't possibly be blamed for this, because they were between the Old and New Testaments, i.e. before Christ.

Not only does the Bible not mention any wives or children of Jesus, it's theologically wrong -- Jesus is "the last Adam" (1 Corinthians 15:45).

[Carl Smuda]

Socrates,
what about the NT Apocraphyl books?
Carl

[GrayPilgrim]

Hey Carl, how have you been? Those books generally are not called Apocraphyl. They are either Pseudepigraphal, lumped in with the Early Church Fathers or Heretical.

I saw part of a "documentary" (I use that term loosely) that was on around easter hypothesizing this very thing. They used the Gospel of Thomas as its proof. There are some problem IMO with that. It is Gnostic and thus divergent from Apostolic Christianity which also means it is seperated from Jesus by at least 100 years It is made up of sayings, i.e. it is not like the four Gospels in structure or content. Its misogyny would not lend itself to associating Jesus with a woman in any way other than to transform her into a male

GP

[Carl Smuda]

O GrayPilgrim,
I'm so busy I barely have time to spit! In addition to my full time job I'm going almost 30 hours a week to the Carson City community college police academy. If the Lord wills, I shall go into probation/parole, maybe even Juvenile Justice. So my first love (historical theology) has been reduced to almost nothing since January. the last several years before January I spent too much of my free time studying studying studying. I was kind of scary to stop that wonderful study with a screetching halt. I couldn't pull this off without my wife's help. God Bless her!

Yea, I've read Thomas' gospel. Do you think the "Jesus seminar" people are right in that they say that the earliest gospels were a collection of sayings from Christ? And then later the sayings were put together into narrative? (don't get me wrong, I respect canon!).

I see that we shouldn't use the word 'apocrapha' when speaking of these NT writings out side of NT canon. I mean some of those letters written by church fathers that were written after the original Aposltes and the like. Things like: Epistle of Barnabas, First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, Second Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, The letter of the Smyrnaeans or the Martyrdom of Polycarp, The Shepherd of Hermas, and the like. I'm no expert on these things. I've read a bit of them.

not to mention some of that other stuff in that book with the stupid name ("the Lost books of the Bible" - I really think that is a really stupid name) The Gospel of Mary, or I can't remember...descriptions of the ascension by some witnesses who weren't followers of the Lord Jesus Christ. I read part of some thing called, "the Acts of Thomas" were he goes to India because the raised Christ Jesus sells him to a carpenter or something. yadda yadda yadda.

Your right about some woman hating thing in Thomas. Something about woman must become like man? One thing I DID notice: when one is familiar with the NT, one can't help but notice how awful some of this stuff is that didn't make the list.

respectfully,
Carl

[GrayPilgrim]

As to whether it went from sayings list-->Gospels:

I think that an argument can be made that this is so. However, I don't think that the time between is as great as the Jesus Seminar wants to make out.

Stephen T. Neil & Tom Wright's book on this subject (which I am reading) makes the following argument based upon Markan Primacy (i.e. Mark was the first of our Gospels to be written)


Lists are made of Jesus' sayings
Mark with Peter's help and writes his Gospel
Matthew and Luke (independently) use this list of sayings called Q (:rant: I hate Q), Mark and Independet sources M and L respectively write their Gospels

That is the basic consensus and using this even critical schoalrs will put the Synoptics (Matthew, Mark and Luke by 80 AD at the latest. RT France in his commentar on Matthew does a good job of arguing for Matthean Primacy which negates the need for Q IMO. The idea of a sayings Gospel comes from Papias' statement that "Matthew wrote the words in Hebrew" or something to that affect in the 2nd Century

GP

[Carl Smuda]

Do you think "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" is garbage as Socrates has indicated? I've recently regretted not finishing that book. In the early 90's I began to read it but it didn't grab me.

[GrayPilgrim]

I must confess I have never heard of it before.

[Carl Smuda]

Well I wish I had finished it. But if it is clap-trap why bother? I'd like to know if there is anything reasonable about it. I should check Socrates' link.

[AVmetro]

Hey D.C.-

Here is a link someone passed along to me:

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/singlejesus.html

-God bless-

[Socrates]

JP Holding on his Tektonics website has a good article on authoriship and dates of the Gospels, which links to more specialised articles www.tektonics.org/tekton_02_02_02.html He also has a healthy skepticism for the Markan priority and Q.

It's really amazing how the liberals like the Jesus Seminar crowd are so dogmatic about what Q contained even though such a thing has never been found! See also the critiques of the Jesus Seminar at www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t016.html

[DBoone]

The idea itself, that Jesus might have children through Mary Magdelene, is not impossible. But I think that there are some reasons to believe it didn't happen:

1) Jesus was a Jew, and a good Jew at that. If He was going to have children He would have married Mary. But there is no record of that wedding taking place in the Bible. Also there is no genealogy given after Jesus.

2) The purpose for Christ was to be "the Lamb of God who takes away our sin", he was not put here to seed another bloodline like Abraham. He was sent to establish a heavenly kingdom not an earthly one.

3) Jesus would not have limited his ministry by getting married. Paul under the unction of the Holy Spirit said that a single man need only consider how to please God, but a married man must also consider how to please his wife.

[Waterrock]

Dear DC,

Allow me to address your post a bit at a time:

DC: "I know that Catholic dogma says that Mary was a prostitute and was the prototype for the women who sinned and repented."

Yet there is no Biblical basis for claiming that Mary Magdalene was ever a prostitute (as you surmised).

DC: "From my readings (the bible and other theological works) I have the feeling that Mary and Jesus shared a very special relationship."

Luke 8:2-3 mentions that Mary Magdalene was one of a group of women who supported Jesus' ministry. Mark didn't mention her until nearly the end of his account, in Mark 15:40. We can conclude that she was a follower of Christ who was more or less in the background until she witnessed Jesus after His resurrection. (And after telling the good news to the disciples, she once again returns to the background.)

DC: "I have also read other books that propose that Mary gave birth to a child fathered by Jesus."

But you haven't given the specific titles of those books in this thread, which leaves me not at all sure what to do with you. I opt to follow all tracks:

if you are referring to "Holy Blood, Holy Grail," well, as Socrates said (and as his link probably demonstrates), it's ridiculous, with a foundation of fanciful, legend-based fluff.

If you're referring to Barbara Thiering's book about the Dead Sea Scrolls, in which she claims that the scrolls contain a secret code that gives details about the ministry of Jesus, including his marriage to Mary Magdalene, well, let me just say, in the kindest possible way, that Dr. Thiering's interpretive method is ... absolutely ludicrous.

If you're referring to something else, please tell me specifically what it is. Saying "some apocryphal source" tells me nothing. There is nothing in the Apocrypha (i.e., the extra material incorporated in Roman Catholic Bibles) that suggests this; nor is there anything in the early Pseudepigrapha (books like "Enoch" or the "Proto-Evangelium of James") that supports the scenario you describe.

DC: "Given the historical time frame and that we dont hear about Jesus until he is in is 30's, I find it very unlikely that he would of remained single and childless."

On the other hand, it seems even more unlikely that He would have a wife and kids and yet the Gospel-accounts either give no mention of them at all, or mention the wife (Mary Magdalene) but state that she was simply one of a few women who supported Jesus' ministry, and that Jesus had healed her of demon-possession. As a person who had been healed by Jesus, Mary Magdalene would have a profound and logical reason to follow Jesus, and the Gospel-writers would have a good reason to describe her in that way (namely, because it was true, and because it would be a good idea to provide a bit of background about the first person to see Jesus after the resurrection). Whereas the motivation for a Gospel-writer to concoct such a description of Mary Magdalene out of thin air would be ... well, what, exactly?

DC: "It is much more reasonable that he was married and had a family before God called him to begin his ministry."

Not if you take the Gospels seriously. In Mark 3:21, Jesus' "own people" come to get Him. Who are these people? Wife, kids, and in-laws? No. They're His mother, brothers, and sisters. There is no indication whatsoever that Jesus was married. And in Matthew 13:55, notice what the people of Nazareth say when they object to the idea that Jesus is the Messiah: it's all about, "Hey, this guy is Joseph's son; we know his brothers and sisters." Notice, also, what they do *not* say: they do not say, "We know his wife and in-laws." (And if we were to expect anyone to note such relatives anywhere, it would be there.)

The celibacy exhibited by the Essenes should tell us that people in first-century Judea would *not* consider it unusual for an itinerant teacher such as Jesus to be celibate.

Also, Luke's inclusion of the story of Jesus in the temple as a child suggests that Luke wished to show that even at an early age, Jesus was aware of His calling and His divine Sonship (inasmuch as Mary alludes to Joseph as Jesus' father but Jesus answers by calling God His Father, in Luke 2:49). Such an awareness of His mission and His nature is more than adequate to explain why Jesus did not marry.

Yours in Christ,
Waterrock

[gnosis]

05-07-2003 @ 06:16 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=90101#post90101)
GrayPilgrim:

Hey Carl, how have you been? Those books generally are not called Apocraphyl. They are either Pseudepigraphal, lumped in with the Early Church Fathers or Heretical.

It appears Wesley Center for Applied Theology (http://wesley.nnu.edu/noncanon.htm) disagree with them being Pseudepigrapha calling them Apocryphal.

It is Gnostic and thus divergent from Apostolic Christianity which also means it is seperated from Jesus by at least 100 years

GoT being Gnostic is higly debated, it is known to have been used by gnostics including the Manichaeans. But lets assume it is Gnostic.


It is made up of sayings, i.e. it is not like the four Gospels in structure or content.

This is exactly like the hypothetical Q gospel, That should not be a reason to disqualify it.

Its misogyny would not lend itself to associating Jesus with a woman in any way other than to transform her into a male

This is the typical drivel you hear from people like Hank Hanegraaff. It is taken completely out of context. The passage of Gospel of Thomas that you are refering to is Logia 114

Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life."

Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven."

Fistly it is taken out of context in the text itself. Logia 1 states

And he said, "Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death."

Which makes it clear it is not to be takent literally which you have done with logia 114.

Secondly it is taken out of context by the wider body of "gnostic" texts. Gnostics used female and male not to be literal but to be principles of soul and spirit, you will find this in most gnostic texts.

Thirdly and finally you are taking this out of a historical context. The gnostics where the only christian group at that time that held women to be equal to men not just in essence but also in function within the church. Tertullian makes this perfectly clear when his mysogony bears down on the gnostic in Praescr. Ch 41.

"In the first place one does not known who is a catechumen, who is a believer, they meet with one another (in the house of assembly), listen to one another and pray with one another. Even if pagans approach them they throw that which is holy to the gods, and pearls, though they be false, before swine. They wish the abondonment of discipline (disciplina) to be taken for simplicity, and our concern for it they call pandering. They maintain (ecclesiastical) harmony with all making no distinction. As a matter of fact it exists among them although they hold different doctrines as long as they wage common warfare against one thing, truth (i.e. orthodoxy). They are all puffed up, all promise 'knowlege'. Their catechumens are already 'perfected' (perfecti) before they are taught. Even the heretical women - how barefaced they are! They make bold to teach, to dispute, to perform exorcisms, to promise cures, perhapst also to baptize. Their ordinations are carelessly administered, capricious and inconsistent."

I think it is safe to say if there is any misogony it mostly happens within the orthodox branch of christianity. Luckily it is not a big problem in todays society where women have once again claimed the roles in the church once allowed only in the gnostic christian branch.

I leave you with one more quote from the church fathers.

"What does it matter whether it is a wife or a mother, it is Eve the temptress we must beware of in any woman." --Augustine

In peace and gnosis,

gnosis

[Carl Smuda]

Hi gnosis,
I recall reading about the misogony through the centuries. Elaine Pagels I recall taught me about that in her wonderful book, "Adam, Eve, and the Serpent." (I hope I got that title right). But something else to bless all the Christians out there: The orthodox, not the gnostics, were willing to die for their faith before the Roman government. In Pagels' book, "the Gnostic Gospels" she explains that the gnostics thought it was silly to die for these beliefs.

Because they weren't willing to die for the convictions, like the orthodox, they faded in history but orthodoxy had the cohesion to survive and Christianity with them. I don't think anyone can claim the gnostic heresy died because the orthodox killed them off, hence the great Nag Hammadi discovery. They simply weren't part of God's plans, as interesting as they are they really are a MIXTURE of many things not just the Christian faith.

the woman-hating aspects are horrible to be sure, but that doesn't make what the gnostics taught valid.

sincerely,
Carl

[gnosis]

Hello Carl,

I recall reading about the misogony through the centuries. Elaine Pagels I recall taught me about that in her wonderful book, "Adam, Eve, and the Serpent." (I hope I got that title right).

Yes Elaine did write a book with that title among some other lovely books she penned. She just released a new book after quite a break from authoring called "Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas". Looking forward to read it in the near future.

But something else to bless all the Christians out there: The orthodox, not the gnostics, were willing to die for their faith before the Roman government. In Pagels' book, "the Gnostic Gospels" she explains that the gnostics thought it was silly to die for these beliefs.

You are right the early Gnostics did not want to die for what amounted to a show of respect or placating of authorities, ie. bow down to the emperor. This would be tantamount to refusing to shake the hand of our President knowing this carried the death penalty. This most likely have something to do with soteriology not with cowardice. Gnostics saw salvation to come from knowledge of God, if you did not have gnosis what point would death serve? The orthodox heresy on the other hand promised freely salvation by faith and martyrdom, see Justin "seek" Martyr(dom), and that might be an admirable option if salvation by faith and martyrdom is indeed correct. Now to say no gnostics died for their faith throughout history is blatantly false. The Cathars of Languedoc, France suffered lots of persecution and death by the ruling religious elite of the Roman Catholic Church. The famous quote "Kill them all, God will know his own" is from this atrocity. Personally I think I'm far more valuable for the Kingdom of God while here and breathing than if I where to be 6 feet under.

Because they weren't willing to die for the convictions, like the orthodox, they faded in history but orthodoxy had the cohesion to survive and Christianity with them.

While the Gnostics are far from the number of those in the orthodox heresy, I would take objection to that they faded into history. Willingness to die for your cause is not a reason groups survive nor is it any evidence to the claim of the cause as history has shown us. If that was the case, we would still have Cathars in France and Bogomils in Bulgaria. You would have Manichaeans running around who where just as persecuted as those within the orthodox heresy. Mani was executed by the rulers of his days.

I don't think anyone can claim the gnostic heresy died because the orthodox killed them off, hence the great Nag Hammadi discovery.

You are right, the orthodox have not killed of the gnostics they are very much still alive today, hence the great reception of the Nag Hammadi find. While the orthodox might have tried at some time or another in history to eliminate them (Counting RCC as orthodox here) as was the case with the Cathars.

They simply weren't part of God's plans, as interesting as they are they really are a MIXTURE of many things not just the Christian faith.

I think they where very much part of God's plan and Yes they are very intersting. When you refer to MIXTURE are you refering to the gnostics use of adapting the symbols of other religions/faiths to make their points? Mani being an expert in this area. Or are you refering to specific theological constructs? In either case no religion/faith is immune to this as all new religions/faiths build on the language of their ancestors and or culture.

the woman-hating aspects are horrible to be sure, but that doesn't make what the gnostics taught valid.

Yes women hating or any other hating for that matter is a horrible act. My previous post was only meant to set the record straight of those who further the error of calling gnostics misogonists, which most who have paid any attention to the subject quickly rejects as baseless. If you want validity God is the only one that can give that and no one else.


In peace and gnosis,

gnosis

[Carl Smuda]

gnosis,
by mixture I mean gnosticism predates Christianity and is a mixture of eastern philosophies and judaism and Christianity. Christianity isn't about a secret knowledge that divides up the body of Christ into the initiated and the dum-dums. We are all members of the Body of Christ and we all have been baptized into one spirit and have all been made to drink into one spirit. And God has set some in the Church. First Apostles then Prophets, then et cetera. No where in canon is there anything about initiation into gnosis. And no where does Christ or anyone talk about compromising Christian principles. That the gnostics didn't think the Faith was worth dying for says enough. No explanation is even needed. They were not willing to die for Jesus and the orthodox were. Jesus Christ said if you deny Him before men He will deny you before His Father, but if you speak His name before men He will speak your name before the Father. The bottom line is gnosticism is not Christianity. At least not the version that passed over from one generation to the next for twenty (20) centuries. Now that we are here in the 21st century so many groups, not just gnostics, wanna talk about how "they" think it should be done, how "they" think it could be done better. RUBBISH! The Lord Jesus Christ continues to relentlessly build His church and so far no gate has been stronger than He.

Christianity survived because His Saints were willing to stand for the truth. There could only be a protestant reformation because somebody was willing to DIE for Christ.

respectfully,
Carl