Mary Magdelene

[noodleboy]

[URL=http://www.danbrown.com/media/magdalene.html]http://www.danbrown.com/media/magdalene.html[/URL]

[IMG]http://a1259.g.akamai.net/f/1259/5586/1d/images.art.com/images/PRODUCTS/large/10071000/10071089.jpg[/IMG]

what do you believe about Mary Magdalene? Was she the whore of the century or the wife of Jesus? Who is that to the right (our left) of jesus?

I believe she was the wife of Jesus, and that she and her children are the holy grail.

[Vegitto4]

1) The life of Jesus was documented in the Bible. Nowhere in the New Testament did it say that Jesus was Married. If Jesus had been married, then the Bible would have stated this fact.
2) In order to be the sacrifice for humanity, he must be pure. This includes sexually pure.

[noodleboy]

but! you have that the bible has been written many times over. Second we don't REALLY know who he is. Also it seems u didn't read this to closely, eh? here's my favorite part in it: "Many Christians prefer to stick strictly to the canonical Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) and are dismissive of historical context and non-canonical texts."

[wrist cutter]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by noodleboy [/i]
[B]but! you have that the bible has been written many times over. Second we don't REALLY know who he is.[/B][/QUOTE]

There's very little point to this thread if you're going to use that argument.

I mean honestly - this "it's been translated SO MANY times..." It could work with anything. There's no way to dispute it. I mean, it seems unlikely that what would seem like a fairly important part (Jesus being married) would be conveniently left out. But other than that there's really no way to argue that point.

It's like having a monopoly on the debate.

[Vegitto4]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by noodleboy [/i]
[B]but! you have that the bible has been written many times over. Second we don't REALLY know who he is. Also it seems u didn't read this to closely, eh? here's my favorite part in it: "Many Christians prefer to stick strictly to the canonical Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) and are dismissive of historical context and non-canonical texts." [/B][/QUOTE]

Do you even know why many christians stick to those gospels? It's because we shouldn't need to listen to any other non-biblical texts. Like Apocrypha (which was mentioned in that article, which I read very closely actually).

If you study anything at all about Textual Criticism (the study of how we got what we know today as the Bible) the proof is clearly available that the extant (copies left available today) manuscripts were ~painstakingly~ copied to prevent discrepencies, and could withstand even greater rigors than a DNA test for a modern day evidenciary hearing.

Maybe you can answer me this: How would something written 1500 years after the gospels possibly be able to tell us ~more~ than the eyewittness accounts themselves?

[Heaven's Cloud]

[color=indigo]I am pretty sure that this thread was inspired by "The DaVinci Code", or at least some of the media that has surrounded the novel (which is quite good).

There is no historical proof that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene other than a few documents that were written four hundred and thirty years after Jesus' death. However, from a historical perspective you could say the exact same about Jesus [u]not[/u] being married, the only factual evidence is the bible. It is a thought that Emperor Constantine left several excerpts out of the book so he could further his political agenda. Over centuries, the Catholic Church has searched for lost excerpts and passages but they either have turned up empty-handed or are purposefully withholding the documents. More than likely most of the message (if not all of it) made it into the good book? [/color]



[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Vegitto4 [/i]
[B]Do you even know why many christians stick to those gospels? It's because we shouldn't need to listen to any other non-biblical texts. Like Apocrypha (which was mentioned in that article, which I read very closely actually).

If you study anything at all about Textual Criticism (the study of how we got what we know today as the Bible) the proof is clearly available that the extant (copies left available today) manuscripts were ~painstakingly~ copied to prevent discrepencies, and could withstand even greater rigors than a DNA test for a modern day evidenciary hearing.
[/B][/QUOTE]

[color=indigo]That doesn't mean that things weren't left out of the original copy. Again, it is a point that cannot be validated either way, you can only make a true judgement based on your heart and what your heart truly believes. I, personally, wouldn't base my faith solely on the presentation of a magazine article or a fictional novel, I would base it on what fells right in my heart, soul, and mind.[/color]

[Mitch]

[size=1] I don't believe in anything of this sort lol.

As far as I see it, she can be the whore of Jesus. Makes it more fun to me.


So many things can be disputed in the bible. So many things can be disputed about religion in general.

And this is label as one of the most mysterious things?

My opinion on this is that, obviously, I do not care who this Magdalene person was...[/size]

[Semjaza]

There isn't even any historical proof that Magdalene was a prostitute. Most people think that was a thanks to Pope Gregory intentionally changing her persona to fit the popular opinion at the time. A lot of people simply came to the conclusion that she was a prostitute and confused her with a couple other people mentioned in the Bible. Specifically the sinner who annointed Jesus's feet. They aren't the same person.

Whether or not they were married? Who knows. Marriage [i]doesn't equate to sex[/i]. Magdalene is referred to as Jesus's companion and consort of the Gospel of Phillip, but who knows what that really means. Same deal with Jesus kissing her on the lips in the same Gospel. You can go anywhere you want with this stuff. There is no real definitive thing that tells you one way or the other. I'd have to assume a lot of the marriage ideas are merely figurative.

The main importance of Mary Magdalene is obviously that she was the one that told the Disciples about the resurrection of Christ, which they then spread to others. The rest of it is simply irrelvent, in my opinion, and I'm not even a religious person.

So, all this other stuff is nonsense, in my opinion. It's something that is entrenched in people's beliefs already because of years of misunderstanding. Most people think that Satan was actually called Lucifer in Heaven and had some sort of name change when he fell to Hell... so who I can believe and who I cannot is a very arbitrary line at times. Lucifer in the Bible refers to a fallen king, similiar the Luciferus in mythology. Satan was always Satan.

So really, it's all a mess.

[noodleboy]

[i]I am pretty sure that this thread was inspired by "The DaVinci Code", or at least some of the media that has surrounded the novel (which is quite good).

There is no historical proof that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene other than a few documents that were written four hundred and thirty years after Jesus' death. However, from a historical perspective you could say the exact same about Jesus not being married, the only factual evidence is the bible. It is a thought that Emperor Constantine left several excerpts out of the book so he could further his political agenda. Over centuries, the Catholic Church has searched for lost excerpts and passages but they either have turned up empty-handed or are purposefully withholding the documents. More than likely most of the message (if not all of it) made it into the good book?





quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vegitto4
Do you even know why many christians stick to those gospels? It's because we shouldn't need to listen to any other non-biblical texts. Like Apocrypha (which was mentioned in that article, which I read very closely actually).

If you study anything at all about Textual Criticism (the study of how we got what we know today as the Bible) the proof is clearly available that the extant (copies left available today) manuscripts were ~painstakingly~ copied to prevent discrepencies, and could withstand even greater rigors than a DNA test for a modern day evidenciary hearing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



That doesn't mean that things weren't left out of the original copy. Again, it is a point that cannot be validated either way, you can only make a true judgement based on your heart and what your heart truly believes.[/i]

Thank you!

[i]I, personally, wouldn't base my faith solely on the presentation of a magazine article or a fictional novel, I would base it on what fells right in my heart, soul, and mind.[/i]

i'm not solely basing it on this novel. but if i was it wouldn't be incorrect for dan brown, the authorj, did alot of research and used it in his novels plot.

[i]all this other stuff is nonsense[/i]
i know it is, it's just something that's nice to know

[Guest cloricus]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by wrist cutter [/i]
[B]it seems unlikely that what would seem like a fairly important part (Jesus being married) would be conveniently left out. [/B][/QUOTE]

Wrist Cutter the bible was censored a long time ago, in fact several times; when it was originally collated and every version since even if it was a "translation from the prime source" has been censored heavily so really there is no way of knowing what?s missing and what?s out of context. Although I think the basis of this thread is silly there are more prominent gaps that could be attacked in the bible which have no rebuttal.

[ChibiHorsewoman]

Hey, if the Bible can be brought up repeatedly, can some of us bring up our book of shadows and some of the more prominant Pagan writings?
I have no actual established opinion on the Bible or Jesus in particular other than the fact it's been used for witch hunts and the Burning Times. And it's been twisted enough to beable to prove everything from 'GOd 'hates homosexuals' to 'God hates witchcraft'
Infact if you read any other version besides the KJV, you won't find the infamous-Suffer not a witch to live quote.
Okay, rant over.
Hey, what if Jesus did marry Mary? If you want to get really technical you can also interpret feet to be something else entirely different. BUt that's just me
[COLOR=indigo]Wait, am I on glue or something?[/COLOR]

[Justin]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i]
[B]there are more prominent gaps that could be attacked in the bible which have no rebuttal. [/B][/QUOTE] \
Then I challenge you to do so. You talk so much, now back it up. My PM inbox is open.

Magdalene the wife of Jesus? I doubt that. Why do I doubt it? Because there's no reason to assume she was. Does it metter? No...Jesus was still the pure and perfect sacrifice, and He still gave up everything that we may be saved.

-Justin

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Justin [/i]
[B]

Magdalene the wife of Jesus? I doubt that. Why do I doubt it? Because there's no reason to assume she was. Does it metter? No...Jesus was still the pure and perfect sacrifice, and He still gave up everything that we may be saved.

-Justin [/B][/QUOTE]

Hey, it's possible. There have been so many things omitted from the Bible. (ie Lilith and Judith) That anything could be possible. Well, except for the possibility of aliens. That just seems a bit too far fetched even for me.
Besides, if Christians can come over to Ireland and turn the goddess Brigid into the St.Brigid, then why can't Jesus get married? It [i]is[/i] after all a sacred act.



[COLOR=purple]And it harm none, do what ye will.[/COLOR]

[noodleboy]

[i]Because there's no reason to assume she was. Does it metter?[/i]
but it does. By depicting the Magdalene as a whore, people would be less likely to accept the theory that Jesus and the Magdalene were a couple. Religious authority can be pretty insidious when it sets its mind up to do something.

but it's all just one big mess

[TheShinje]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ChibiHorsewoman [/i]
[B]Hey, it's possible. There have been so many things omitted from the Bible. (ie Lilith and Judith)[/B][/QUOTE]

How do you know for a fact that they actually were books from the Bible? I ask you to read the CARM website linked in my sig, it has some useful information on the so called "lost books" and you can read them there too. Usually, a book left out of the Bible, based on my experience with them, [i]contradicts[/i] the gospel, therefore it is not gospel.

Lilith = the name of a demon. and the name of a bible Chapter, o_O ???

[QUOTE][b]
That anything could be possible. Well, except for the possibility of aliens. That just seems a bit too far fetched even for me.
Besides, if Christians can come over to Ireland and turn the goddess Brigid into the St.Brigid, then why can't Jesus get married? It [i]is[/i] after all a sacred act.[/b][/QUOTE]


Not all Christians turn pagan God's into Saints by the way.


[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by noodleboy [/i]
[B]
[IMG]http://a1259.g.akamai.net/f/1259/5586/1d/images.art.com/images/PRODUCTS/large/10071000/10071089.jpg[/IMG]
[/B][/QUOTE]

16th century Roman artwork is not always an accurate and precise portrayal of the true last supper, given that it was created hundreds of years after Jesus' death and resurrection. If it were Mary Magdalene, then it doesn't really matter. She wasn't a hoar, and she wasn't Jesus' wife either. The reason I discredit this picture is that, From bilbical accounts, the only people present at the last supper were Jesus and the disciples, and I hold the Bible up as the true inspired living word of God.

[Guest rttocs77]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Vegitto4 [/i]
[B]1) The life of Jesus was documented in the Bible. Nowhere in the New Testament did it say that Jesus was Married. If Jesus had been married, then the Bible would have stated this fact.
2) In order to be the sacrifice for humanity, he must be pure. This includes sexually pure. [/B][/QUOTE]

Yes, becuase we know all Christians are way too pure to leave out information right? :rolleyes:

[TheShinje]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by rttocs77 [/i]
[B]Yes, becuase we know all Christians are way too pure to leave out information right? :rolleyes: [/B][/QUOTE]

Of Course we are, we're dirty unholy sinners fallen short of the glory of God, that's really pure. :cross:

[noodleboy]

[i]The reason I discredit this picture is that, From bilbical accounts, the only people present at the last supper were Jesus and the disciples, and I hold the Bible up as the true inspired living word of God.[/i]

magdalene was a disciple. and the reason for that picture is that it was made by a man that belonged in a secret socity and I for one trust his knowledge. eh? but what does he know, right?

[Dan L]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Vegitto4 [/i]
[B]1) The life of Jesus was documented in the Bible. Nowhere in the New Testament did it say that Jesus was Married. If Jesus had been married, then the Bible would have stated this fact.
2) In order to be the sacrifice for humanity, he must be pure. This includes sexually pure. [/B][/QUOTE]

In response to point 2:

Sexual purity has less to do with not having sex at all in your lifetime, and more to do with not doing it with people you aren't married to.

Jesus [i]could[/i] have married in his lifetime, and have still been sexually pure.

However your first point is correct in that it was never mentioned that Jesus was married. In fact, the Bible clearly states that Jesus' bride is the Church, made up of all his followers. It's a concept I think none of us can really fully come to grips with, but the point is that Jesus didn't have a bride while he was here on Earth.

[Justin]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by noodleboy [/i]
[B][i]The reason I discredit this picture is that, From bilbical accounts, the only people present at the last supper were Jesus and the disciples, and I hold the Bible up as the true inspired living word of God.[/i]

magdalene was a disciple. and the reason for that picture is that it was made by a man that belonged in a secret socity and I for one trust his knowledge. eh? but what does he know, right? [/B][/QUOTE]

Magdelene was not a disciple. She was a follower...there is a difference. Jesus picked His twelve disciples and they are listed as He picked them in the Book of...[i]Matthew[/i], if I'm not mistaken. Therefore, she was in fact not present at the last supper.

But that aside, what relevance does a painting made 1500 years later have to the event itself? And if that is supposed to be Mary(and the painting is erroneous), what of that? Because she's sitting next to Him, there is a sexual relationship? It's obvious that very few people here understand the true Jesus. He loves everyone with perfect love. And perfect loves knows no degree.

-Justin

[Vegitto4]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Dan L [/i]
[B]In response to point 2:

Sexual purity has less to do with not having sex at all in your lifetime, and more to do with not doing it with people you aren't married to.

Jesus [i]could[/i] have married in his lifetime, and have still been sexually pure.

However your first point is correct in that it was never mentioned that Jesus was married. In fact, the Bible clearly states that Jesus' bride is the Church, made up of all his followers. It's a concept I think none of us can really fully come to grips with, but the point is that Jesus didn't have a bride while he was here on Earth. [/B][/QUOTE]

By your last statement, you just proved me right. Yes, Jesus' bride was the church, therefore, he did not marry Mary. Since He is married to His church, He would not marry another. Thus commiting(sp?) Adultery, thus causing the proclamation to be God a Lie.

[herbkir]

One argument in favor of Jesus being married was that he was a rabbi, a religious teacher, in an age when it was the normal and expected thing for a rabbi to be married. If he weren't married by age 30, when he began his ministry, that would have been considered really queer by the standards of that place and time. It also is nearly certain that he had siblings (or at least half-siblings), since Joseph and Mary would probably have had children other than him.

It would be a contradiction that a married man couldn't also be the path to salvation. To say that Jesus had to be pure in order to be the savior, so therefore he could not have sex within marriage, would mean that sex with your spouse is a sin. And that would really upset a lot of married folks out there. (^_*)

[Bio]

[b][i](The New Testament, Revalation, Chapter 22, verses 18-19)[/b][/i]
[font=times]
[i][b]18[/b] I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this book;
[size=1][b]19[/b][/size] if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away that person's share in the tree of life, and in the holy city, which are described in this book.[/font][/i]
-----------------------
[color=royalblue][size=1]Therefore, I do not believe that anyone who was Christian, or well-versed in the Bible anyway, would change the contents of the Good Book. This, however, does not disprove lost articles.

More to the point, I do not believe Mary Magdelene was a whore, slut, or any of the other colorful synonyms. God did choose her to give birth to Jesus, didn't he?[/color][/size]

[noodleboy]

[i]By your last statement, you just proved me right[/i]

lol that's funny! there is no way to [b]prove[/b] this unless [b]you[/b] were there

[i]what relevance does a painting made 1500 years later have to the event itself? And if that is supposed to be Mary(and the painting is erroneous), what of that? Because she's sitting next to Him, there is a sexual relationship? It's obvious that very few people here understand the true Jesus. He loves everyone with perfect love. And perfect loves knows no degree.[/i]

well, to understand the painting you must understand the artist. Which i don't feel like explaining. the artist is Da Vinci. the reasone the painting is so important is that it justifies that Jesus had to have a relationship. was it sexual well... you can only assume. also notice that how they are sitting together!

just because he loves everyone doesn't mean he was [i]in[/i] love with someone. my friend no one person knows another

[i]The New Testament, Revalation, Chapter 22, verses 18-19)

18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this book;
19 if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away that person's share in the tree of life, and in the holy city, which are described in this book.[/i]

lol do u think that would stop the church!


*edit*
want more one da vinci and the words that i can't put together
[url]http://ramon_k_jusino.tripod.com/leonardo.html[/url]
another!
[url]http://www.printeryhouse.org/mall/Icons/Holy_women/MCM22.asp[/url]

[vegeta rocker]

How can anyone see any point in arguing over someone who died so long ago.
If you want to voice your opinion on M.M. then voice it.

I don't see what noodleboy means so accomplish by asking for opinions then bashing them with his/her version of the bible.
I say his/her version because the bible can be interpreted many ways.

That was a low shot rttocs77. I guess whatever religion you beleive in is squeaky clean. Which is no religion by the way.

If Jesus existed i am sure he loved her in the purest way. The same way he loved all mankind.