Is Mary Magdalene's gosple real?

[Zundrah]

Do you think that the gosple of Mary Magdalene is authentic?
1 - It has been aged correctly so…
2 - It doesn’t have heresys in it.
3 - It seems competely harmless and biblicaly correct.

Have you read it?
Do you believe that it is genuine?
I do. But of course that is only my oppinion and I am not going to try to convince any one else of that. But what do you think about it, if you have read it? If you haven’t read it then quickly go and do it now, becasue it is only very short and small.

 

[Zundrah]

This is pretty much most of it…

“Peter said to Mary, ‘Sister, we know that the Savior loved you more than the rest of the women. Tell us the words of the Savior which you remember - which you know (but) we do not, nor have we heard them.’” [7] Mary responds to Peter’s request by recounting a conversation she had with the Savior about visions.

"(Mary) said, ‘I saw the Lord in a vision and I said to him, ‘Lord, I saw you today in a vision.’ He answered and said to me: “Blessed are you, that you did not waver at the sight of me. For where the mind is, there is the treasure.’ I said to him, ‘So now, Lord, does a person who sees a vision see it the soul through the spirit?’[6]
In the conversation, the Savior teaches that the inner self is composed of soul, spirit, and mind, and visions are seen and understood in the mind. Then the text breaks off and the next four pages are missing. When the narrative resumes, Mary is no longer recalling her discussion with the Savior. She is instead recounting the revelation given to her in her vision. The revelation describes an ascent of a soul, which as it passes on its way to its final rest, engages in dialogue with four powers that try to stop it.

Her vision does not meet with universal approval:

“But Andrew answered and said to the brethren, ‘Say what you think concerning what she said. For I do not believe that the Savior said this. For certainly these teachings are of other ideas.’”[11]
“Peter also opposed her in regard to these matters and asked them about the Savior. ‘Did he then speak secretly with a woman, in preference to us, and not openly? Are we to turn back and all listen to her? Did he prefer her to us?’”[12]
However Levi defends Mary and quells Peter’s attack on her. In the text, Peter appears to be offended by the discovery that Jesus selected Mary above the other disciples to interpret his teachings.

 

[Eucharisted]

Here’s a simple and easy way to tell authentic gospels from false gospels:

If the gospel isn’t in the Bible, it isn’t authentic.

 

[Zundrah]

Here’s a simple and easy way to tell authentic gospels from false gospels:

If the gospel isn’t in the Bible, it isn’t authentic.

Okay, nice try but we all know that the bible has only a few of the many books that it should contain! A lot of testamonies were left out because they were considered useless e.c.t…

So I think that the gosple of Mary Magdalene is more than likely an authentic one!
I believe that Peter and many others just did not want it to be out in the open because of what Mary Magdalene says in it.

What do you think about this? It does make sense!

 

[Brendan]

Okay, nice try but we all know that the bible has only a few of the many books that it should contain! A lot of testamonies were left out because they were considered useless e.c.t…!

No, all the ones that are Inspired by God are in the Bible. The ones that are not are simply the words of men. Some can have great use, such as the Didache or the Letter of Clement to the Corinthians. They are certainly useful, but they are not in the Bible because they are simply not the Word of God.

So I think that the gosple of Mary Magdalene is more than likely an authentic one!
I believe that Peter and many others just did not want it to be out in the open because of what Mary Magdalene says in it.

What do you think about this? It does make sense!

No, Christ gave Peter the Keys and instruced Peter to rule His Sheep. Any claim to the contrary is agains the very word of Christ and therefore not to be believed.

 

[Zundrah]

No, all the ones that are Inspired by God are in the Bible. The ones that are not are simply the words of men. Some can have great use, such as the Didache or the Letter of Clement to the Corinthians. They are certainly useful, but they are not in the Bible because they are simply not the Word of God.

No, Christ gave Peter the Keys and instruced Peter to rule His Sheep. Any claim to the contrary is agains the very word of Christ and therefore not to be believed.

Hmmm, yes jesus did allow peter to do what ever he wanted. So what is in the bible is acceptable in christ’s eyes and what is not in the bible is also okay in christ eyes not to be there. Christ did say to peter that what ever he wanted would be accepted inheaven. But that doesn’t mean that Mary Magdalene’s gospel was faulse! It just means that Peter didn’t allow it to get into the biblical records!

 

[Eucharisted]

Okay, nice try but we all know that the bible has only a few of the many books that it should contain! A lot of testamonies were left out because they were considered useless e.c.t…

So I think that the gosple of Mary Magdalene is more than likely an authentic one!
I believe that Peter and many others just did not want it to be out in the open because of what Mary Magdalene says in it.

What do you think about this? It does make sense!

Study the history of the Bible before you try to come up with a history yourself. Remember the old saying, “A fool’s words are his greatest enemies.”

 

[Zundrah]

Study the history of the Bible before you try to come up with a history yourself. Remember the old saying, “A fool’s words are his greatest enemies.”

The history of the bible…that would take years!

But do you think then that the gnostic gospels were just completely made up for fun?

But I truly believe that Peter just didn’t make them official. Maybe he even condemed them like the pope does with things today? But some one ocviously buried those anyway, that is why I believe that they are truly authentic! Nothing can honestly proove other wise.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Okay, nice try but we all know that the bible has only a few of the many books that it should contain! A lot of testamonies were left out because they were considered useless e.c.t.

---

Who’s the “we” that know this? You might think this, but that doesn’t mean anybody “knows” it.

The Bible contains all the books it should contain. Period.

If something was left out because it was considered useless, then what’s the point in digging up useless stuff?

Did you ever stop to think that maybe this tidbit was omitted PRECISELY because it was considered “useless”?

And the abbreviation for “et cetera” is etc., with just ONE period.

 

[kimbaichan]

Gnosticism
(Greek: gnosis, knowledge)
Salvation by knowledge. Gnostics were people who claimed to know mysteries of the universe; various pantheistic sects, antedating the Christian era and lasting to the 5th century and borrowing the formulas of various religious, particularly of Christianity, to express their view of matter as inimical to spirit, and of the universe as a depravation of the Deity.

Gnosticism is a heresy. 'Nuff said.

 

[Zundrah]

Okay, nice try but we all know that the bible has only a few of the many books that it should contain! A lot of testamonies were left out because they were considered useless e.c.t.

---

Who’s the “we” that know this? You might think this, but that doesn’t mean anybody “knows” it.

The Bible contains all the books it should contain. Period.

If something was left out because it was considered useless, then what’s the point in digging up useless stuff?

Did you ever stop to think that maybe this tidbit was omitted PRECISELY because it was considered “useless”?

And the abbreviation for “et cetera” is etc., with just ONE period.

Calm down…
I can sense your anger, but seriously…

Did you ever stop to think that maybe this tidbit was omitted PRECISELY because it was considered “useless”?

What is usless about the word of christ, if you don’t mind me asking you bpbasilphx?

If something was left out because it was considered useless, then what’s the point in digging up useless stuff?

Well God obviously plans everything that happens in this world! So my guess is that it can’t be usless and perhaps Peter should have done a better job at disposing of it!

The Bible contains all the books it should contain. Period.

So what about songs of solomon?
If the bible needs nothing else then why does the book of cannons exist and the cathecism?

Who’s the “we” that know this? You might think this, but that doesn’t mean anybody “knows” it.

The “we” in this sentence stands for any one who knows the truth obviously! Not all the books that were meant to be in the bible are actually there! It would be too big!
Surely you know this?

 

[Zundrah]

Okay, nice try but we all know that the bible has only a few of the many books that it should contain! A lot of testamonies were left out because they were considered useless e.c.t.

---

And the abbreviation for “et cetera” is etc., with just ONE period.

What a meanie you are! So I made a mistake, big deal!

 

[lizaanne]

So I think that the gosple of Mary Magdalene is more than likely an authentic one!
I believe that Peter and many others just did not want it to be out in the open because of what Mary Magdalene says in it.

What do you think about this? It does make sense!

No - it does not make sense or else the Church (who assembled the books of the Bible) would have included it.

What you “think” is not relevant. The Councils of the Church have decided what’s in and what’s out - they are not open to question. They are valid Councils and to believe they were in error by choosing the books of the Bible is heresy.

It is heretical to suggest an ecumenical Council is wrong - as what they teach is a matter of doctrine. Florence and Trent are both eccumenical Councils. To suggest scripture contains something it should not or does not contain something it should is heretical also.

~Liza

 

[Zundrah]

No - it does not make sense or else the Church (who assembled the books of the Bible) would have included it.

What you “think” is not relevant. The Councils of the Church have decided what’s in and what’s out - they are not open to question. They are valid Councils and to believe they were in error by choosing the books of the Bible is heresy.

It is heretical to suggest an ecumenical Council is wrong - as what they teach is a matter of doctrine. Florence and Trent are both eccumenical Councils. To suggest scripture contains something it should not or does not contain something it should is heretical also.

~Liza

It’s only heresy if you are catholic! lol

But you are missing the main point! Books were left out of the bible!

 

[Zundrah]

I think that the church just tried to get rid of them, but I don’t inderstand why did. What’s wrong with the gospels?

 

[Brendan]

Hmmm, yes jesus did allow peter to do what ever he wanted.

No, Christ told Peter that what he bound on Earth was bound in Heaven. There can be no untruth in Heaven, so Peter can only bound what is true on Earth. And that is what he, and his sucessors, the Popes, have done.

There is no untruth in the Bible, everthing that is untrue was, by definition, excluded.

So what is in the bible is acceptable in christ’s eyes and what is not in the bible is also okay in christ eyes not to be there.

All that is in the Bible is acceptable in Christ’s eyes, as it has the Holy Spirit as it’s author. Christ and the Spirit are in perfect harmony in all things.

And because of that, there is nothing in the Bible that Christ does not desire to be there.

Christ did say to peter that what ever he wanted would be accepted inheaven.

See above, you misunderstand what ‘binding’ means

But that doesn’t mean that Mary Magdalene’s gospel was faulse! It just means that Peter didn’t allow it to get into the biblical records!

If Peter didn’t allow it into the Biblical records, it would have been because it was binding an untruth, something that cannot exist in Heaven, so therefore it could not happen.

 

[lizaanne]

Not all the books that were meant to be in the bible are actually there! It would be too big!
Surely you know this?

I STRONGLY suggest you learn your Bible history - this is an excellent start: Where Did the Bible Come From?

~Liza

 

[Brendan]

:If the bible needs nothing else then why does the book of cannons exist and the cathecism??

Because Christ willed that His Truth be passed on both in written form (the Bible) and in oral form (Sacred Tradition). And to prevent any personal misinterpretations, He gave us the Holy Magisterium.

That is why we don’t need (or should) rely on personaly opinion of what is Sacred Scripture or not, we can look to what Peter and His Sucessors bound us by, because we know that must be true.

 

[Brendan]

But do you think then that the gnostic gospels were just completely made up for fun? .

No, they were made up by the Gnostics who were incredibly confused and wrong about the Nature of God and His Incarnate Logos.

The Koran has been kept for almost as long as the Gnostic ‘gospels’ and that doesn’t mean that Mohammed is right either.

 

[theistgal]

I found a helpful way to think of the so-called “apocryphal” gospels - they’re “fan fiction” about Jesus.