Is Mary Magdalene's gosple real?

[Watchman]

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

Excellent!

 

[SaltySirena]

Zundrah, before you get on us Catholics, why don’t you go ask some Protestants why they refuse to include several Old Testament books in their Bibles that we Catholics include as divinely inspired? You say you are Christian… does your Bible include the Apocrypha?

P.S. I agree that you need to learn some Bible history. The Bible would not exist without the Catholic Church (you’re welcome) AND Peter had nothing to do with compiling it, as the Gospels were written after he died, one of them possibly at the very end of his life.

How timely! This question popped up in AAA today: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5411501#post5411501
Some good links to Bible History there.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

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.

Amen!

 

[SaltySirena]

If I remember correctly, too, weren’t there very strict guidelines for including a Gospel?

It had to be a text that was in use in a church founded by one of the Apostles or one of their immediate underlings/contemporaries, like Paul. And it had to have nothing in it that contradicted the known, revealed character of Jesus, as the Apostles and their contemporaries knew him.

An educator from our diocese once showed us some pieces of “gospels” that were not included, and really, it was VERY obvious why they were not.

People make the choosing of the books of the Bible into some big political conspiracy. I am not naive enough to think there are no politics in the Vatican or the Church. But the Bible was put together by men who took their task very seriously and who were willing to leave out some things that might have had some value just to make sure they did not translate any errors about Jesus to later generations. They deserve the benefit of our doubts.

 

[tobinatorstark]

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.

Of course it isn’t authentic. It isn’t one of the 73 books of the Bible

 

[Digitonomy]

The Bible contains all the books it should contain. Period

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

No, all the ones that are Inspired by God are in the Bible. The ones that are not are simply the words of men.

At Trent (and earlier) it was definitively stated what books are to be included in the canon of scripture, and which we must consider inspired. I am not aware of any statement by the Church that books not included in the present canon must automatically not be considered inspired.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

At Trent (and earlier) it was definitively stated what books are to be included in the canon of scripture, and which we must consider inspired. I am not aware of any statement by the Church that books not included in the present canon must automatically not be considered inspired.

It was not stated because it did not need stating. It was obvious and widely accepted, like the fact that we must breathe to live.

 

[Digitonomy]

It was not stated because it did not need stating. It was obvious and widely accepted, like the fact that we must breathe to live.

Good comeback, but not a very strong argument. A more reasonable explanation may be that Rome didn’t want to put another obstacle in the way of reunion with Orthodox, who use a larger OT canon.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Good comeback, but not a very strong argument. A more reasonable explanation may be that Rome didn’t want to put another obstacle in the way of reunion with Orthodox, who use a larger OT canon.

I assume you can prove this.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

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?

A lot of stuff isn’t in the Bible. Just because it isn’t, doesn’t make it true or untrue. I do think that Mary Magdelene was very much downplayed in the New Testament. Obviously she was very important to Jesus and was the first to witness his resurrection. There’s more to her than what is in the Bible.

Even John said that at the end of his Gospel, “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.”

 

[TMaria]

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.

If anyone wants to read it, google Gospel of Mary and you can read the English translation online.

I read the English translation of the gospel of Mary. It’s probably a late 2nd century document. Most of the pages with her vision of Christ and his revelations are missing but what I did read sounds like gnosticism to me. Read the Gospels or Paul’s Epistles in the Bible and then go back and read this and you’ll see clearly that this document contains heresy, isn’t harmless and isn’t biblically correct. This gospel has the Savior saying things like there is no sin and the Good came into the world to restore it to it’s root!

 

[GodIsGracious]

If anyone wants to read it, google Gospel of Mary and you can read the English translation online.

I read the English translation of the gospel of Mary. It’s probably a late 2nd century document. Most of the pages with her vision of Christ and his revelations are missing but what I did read sounds like gnosticism to me. Read the Gospels or Paul’s Epistles in the Bible and then go back and read this and you’ll see clearly that this document contains heresy, isn’t harmless and isn’t biblically correct. This gospel has the Savior saying things like there is no sin and the Good came into the world to restore it to it’s root!

Yeah, when you do a Google search on “Gospel of Mary” the gnostic society site comes up first. I’ve read Origen on there. It’s an interesting read to say the least. I started to read the Pistis Sophia last winter but got bored. LOL!

The thing about sin, tho’, in the Gospel of Mary, is that it reads as if Jesus said that man creates sin through his actions. I’m not sure about the “Good” - what that is or where it came from.

At anyrate, remember that then, as in now, people are making up all sorts of things about what Jesus said, or what God said, or visions from the Holy Spirit, yada yada yada. Religion can be quite profitable. Right now it’s best to play it safe and simply trust in the Holy Spirit that He is teaching us through the Catholic church which has given us the Bible. So I would say that’s final. The rest, if read, should be read under it’s context. If it’s a gnostic scripture, it’s most likely heresy. If it’s an approved Catholic book, you can most likely learn from it. If it’s not, it may be “fan fiction” (thanks theistgal!) or simply off the wall … stuff. Just be careful not to be influenced by them and if you find that you are, cease reading until you’re strong enough to read it for what it is. Stick with the saints is one good rule of thumb.

 

[Zundrah]

Zundrah, before you get on us Catholics, why don’t you go ask some Protestants why they refuse to include several Old Testament books in their Bibles that we Catholics include as divinely inspired? You say you are Christian… does your Bible include the Apocrypha?

…you know very well for a fact that those books **are not **in my bible! I am **protestant **after all! Gosh, what a dig at me! Tch… lol

What is the Apocrypha???

What do you mean by "

before you get on us catholics

"?
I would rather ask catholics these questions rather than other protestants!

 

[Zundrah]

Yeah, when you do a Google search on “Gospel of Mary” the gnostic society site comes up first. I’ve read Origen on there. It’s an interesting read to say the least. I started to read the Pistis Sophia last winter but got bored. LOL!

The thing about sin, tho’, in the Gospel of Mary, is that it reads as if Jesus said that man creates sin through his actions. I’m not sure about the “Good” - what that is or where it came from.

At anyrate, remember that then, as in now, people are making up all sorts of things about what Jesus said, or what God said, or visions from the Holy Spirit, yada yada yada. Religion can be quite profitable. Right now it’s best to play it safe and simply trust in the Holy Spirit that He is teaching us through the Catholic church which has given us the Bible. So I would say that’s final. The rest, if read, should be read under it’s context. If it’s a gnostic scripture, it’s most likely heresy. If it’s an approved Catholic book, you can most likely learn from it. If it’s not, it may be “fan fiction” (thanks theistgal!) or simply off the wall … stuff. Just be careful not to be influenced by them and if you find that you are, cease reading until you’re strong enough to read it for what it is. Stick with the saints is one good rule of thumb.

Well… but do you all really believe that some one just randomly made them up and then buried them!? What was the point in that! I can’t stand it when people just pass this stuff off as rubbish - it is a serious matter!

 

[Zundrah]

If anyone wants to read it, google Gospel of Mary and you can read the English translation online.

I read the English translation of the gospel of Mary. It’s probably a late 2nd century document. Most of the pages with her vision of Christ and his revelations are missing but what I did read sounds like gnosticism to me. Read the Gospels or Paul’s Epistles in the Bible and then go back and read this and you’ll see clearly that this document contains heresy, isn’t harmless and isn’t biblically correct. This gospel has the Savior saying things like there is no sin and the Good came into the world to restore it to it’s root!

When I read it, it all seemed to make perfect sense to me… Good old christ chatting away like old times!

 

[GodIsGracious]

Well… but do you all really believe that some one just randomly made them up and then buried them!? What was the point in that! I can’t stand it when people just pass this stuff off as rubbish - it is a serious matter!

Some of the stuff could be made up, some of it not but is probably based off of the perception of the writer, which most likely was not inspired by the Holy Spirit.

There are modern day religions that have the same issue. (Mormonism being one of them.) Just because some believe in the writings and it makes sense to them, does not make it true. (Dianetics being another philosopy/religion.)

Zundrah, you are free to believe what you wish, but as a Catholic I put my faith and trust in the Holy Spirit and I know that He teaches me through the teachings of the Catholic Church.

 

[Zundrah]

Some of the stuff could be made up, some of it not but is probably based off of the perception of the writer, which most likely was not inspired by the Holy Spirit.

There are modern day religions that have the same issue. (Mormonism being one of them.) Just because some believe in the writings and it makes sense to them, does not make it true. (Dianetics being another philosopy/religion.)

Zundrah, you are free to believe what you wish, but as a Catholic I put my faith and trust in the Holy Spirit and I know that He teaches me through the teachings of the Catholic Church.

This is good for you! But wait a mo…

Zundrah, you are free to believe what you wish, but as a Catholic I put my faith and trust in the Holy Spirit and I know that He teaches me through the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Don’t say that, it sounds like you’ve given up on me!

I’ve left my church and have no advice or ministers to talk to. The only guidence I have is here on this site with you guys ( catholics )! And you certainly are great at helping me!

 

[CHRISTINE77]

…you know very well for a fact that those books **are not **in my bible! I am **protestant **after all! Gosh, what a dig at me! Tch… lol

What is the Apocrypha???

What do you mean by “”?
I would rather ask catholics these questions rather than other protestants!

Apocrypha are texts of uncertain authenticity, or writings where the authorship is questioned.

The Catholic Apocrypha are books left out of the Protestent bibles, such as Tobit, Baruch, some extra Daniel, Maccabees, and Wisdom. There are also Apocrypha that the Catholics don’t use, such as the Gnostic Gospels, which the Gospel of Mary is one.

Apocrypha such as The Book of Enoch is included in the biblical canon only of the Oriental Orthodox churches of Ethiopia and Eritrea.

The Epistle of Jude quotes the book of Enoch, and some believe the use of this book also appears in the four gospels and 1 Peter. The genuineness and inspiration of Enoch were believed in by the writer of the Epistle of Barnabas, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria and much of the early church.

The epistles of Paul and the gospels also show influences from the Book of Jubilees, which is part of the Ethiopian canon, as well as the Assumption of Moses and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, which are included in no biblical canon.

 

[Zundrah]

Apocrypha are books left out of the Protestent bibles, such as Tobit, Baruch, some extra Daniel, Maccabees, and Wisdom. There are also Apocrypha that the Catholics don’t use, such as the Gnostic Gospels, which the Gospel of Mary is one.

The Book of Enoch is included in the biblical canon only of the Oriental Orthodox churches of Ethiopia and Eritrea. The Epistle of Jude quotes the book of Enoch, and some believe the use of this book also appears in the four gospels and 1 Peter. The genuineness and inspiration of Enoch were believed in by the writer of the Epistle of Barnabas, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria and much of the early church. The epistles of Paul and the gospels also show influences from the Book of Jubilees, which is part of the Ethiopian canon, as well as the Assumption of Moses and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, which are included in no biblical canon.

Okay, but… that doesn’t explain this;

Zundrah, before you get on us Catholics, why don’t you go ask some Protestants why they refuse to include several Old Testament books in their Bibles that we Catholics include as divinely inspired?

I am a methodist protestant ( **throw a pitch fork at me! ** LOL ). The gnostic gosples are condemmed by the protestant church too. But that doesn’t stop me from investigating them…
Well if I paid any attention to my ministers then I wouldn’t have come on here to talk to catholics and I wouldn’t have joined a catholic church either!

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Okay, but… that doesn’t explain this;

I am a methodist protestant ( **throw a pitch fork at me! ** LOL ). The gnostic gosples are condemmed by the protestant church too. But that doesn’t stop me from investigating them…
Well if I paid any attention to my ministers then I wouldn’t have come on here to talk to catholics and I wouldn’t have joined a catholic church either!

I totally agree with you, and I get tired of some Catholics here who are so dogmatic, and close-minded. I have read a lot of the Gnostic Gospels, and while I don’t think all are divinely inspired, I do think they are very interesting and worth thinking about. Gospel of Thomas is quite good - it’s sayings of Jesus without the story line.

.