Jesus and Mary Magdalene

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maddalena
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
As a bit of an aside, it amuses me that critics of Christianity, who are very eager to show that the Gospels are writings that reflect the early Church and not the life of Christ, etc., etc., are in some cases more than willing to treat with favour the various Gnostic writings that all scholars accept are considerably later than the canonical gospels. Even the “Gospel of Thomas”, the earliest of the gnostic “gospels”, is probably second century, and almost certainly considerably later than the synoptics. The other Gnostic “gospels” are up to several hundred years younger than the canonical scriptures.

Sadly, this kind of muddled thinking no longer surprises me.😦
 
Bernard Jones:
As a bit of an aside, it amuses me that critics of Christianity, who are very eager to show that the Gospels are writings that reflect the early Church and not the life of Christ, etc., etc., are in some cases more than willing to treat with favour the various Gnostic writings that all scholars accept are considerably later than the canonical gospels. Even the “Gospel of Thomas”, the earliest of the gnostic “gospels”, is probably second century, and almost certainly considerably later than the synoptics. The other Gnostic “gospels” are up to several hundred years younger than the canonical scriptures.

Sadly, this kind of muddled thinking no longer surprises me.😦
Click to expand...
Might the Gnostics have had an oral tradition that was not written immediately? Is oral tradition a valid means of transmitting teaching?
 
Ken, you are right in saying that it is possible that an oral tradition was written down after an hiatus of some hundreds of years. My point was that these gnostic works are depicted by some as an exposé, showing up Christianity for a sham. To maintain this, one must accept that a text written by someone who lived at the same time as the events described (let’s not even insist upon the evangelists being eye witnesses) is less reliable than texts written up to hundreds of years later. Secular historians do not normally work like that; the closer the text to the source, the more reliable. If we are to give historical credibility to the gnostic writings, then we ought to give far more to the Christian writings-but Dan Brown and his ilk see things the other way around.

The other odd point, which I did not mention before, is that the whole gnostic world view is Greek, and the gnostic “gospels” reflect this. We thus have a Jewish man talking and acting like a Greek. It is not impossible, I suppose, but rather less plausible than the canonical gospels, where we have a Jewish man talking and acting like a Jew. The idea that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were lovers is sometimes explained by our neo-gnostic friends in terms of ritualised sex as part of pagan temple worship. (Eg. Holy Blood, Holy Grail, which Dan Brown bases much of his Da Vinci Code on.) How anyone could think that a Jewish man would even think of becoming involved in such blasphemy is beyond me, and even if he did, why would it have turned the world upside down?
 
Bernard Jones:
Ken, you are right in saying that it is possible that an oral tradition was written down after an hiatus of some hundreds of years. My point was that these gnostic works are depicted by some as an exposé, showing up Christianity for a sham. To maintain this, one must accept that a text written by someone who lived at the same time as the events described (let’s not even insist upon the evangelists being eye witnesses) is less reliable than texts written up to hundreds of years later. Secular historians do not normally work like that; the closer the text to the source, the more reliable. If we are to give historical credibility to the gnostic writings, then we ought to give far more to the Christian writings-but Dan Brown and his ilk see things the other way around.

The other odd point, which I did not mention before, is that the whole gnostic world view is Greek, and the gnostic “gospels” reflect this. We thus have a Jewish man talking and acting like a Greek. It is not impossible, I suppose, but rather less plausible than the canonical gospels, where we have a Jewish man talking and acting like a Jew. The idea that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were lovers is sometimes explained by our neo-gnostic friends in terms of ritualised sex as part of pagan temple worship. (Eg. Holy Blood, Holy Grail, which Dan Brown bases much of his Da Vinci Code on.) How anyone could think that a Jewish man would even think of becoming involved in such blasphemy is beyond me, and even if he did, why would it have turned the world upside down?
Click to expand...
I’m not sure we can say they were all written hundreds of years after the Gospels. I think the earliest is early second century, with others following. There probably were some written much later.

However, the interesting idea is the notion that there were multiple versions of Christianity in those early days, Gnosticism being one. Proto orthodoxy was another which eventually dominated the others and morphed into orthodoxy.

It’s always been a bit puzzling that the written record from very early Christianity is so sparse. We know from references in Eusebius that there were other writings that did not survive. It was not until the Nag Hamadi discovery that we learned some did survive.

I have heard the explanation that these writings represent heretics, but a heretic has to first have the orthodox belief. The notion that Jesus’ followers went in individual directions does deserve consideration.
 
“I have heard the explanation that these writings represent heretics, but a heretic has to first have the orthodox belief.”

True enough. It is probably a little unfair to call Gnosticism a heresy, as it differs so radically from Christianity. Gnosticism was not Christianity with some odd or mistaken beliefs, like Jehovah’s Witnesses, but a radically different way of looking at the world. It held that matter was inherently evil. It held that the gods of the Old and New Testament were in opposition; in some schools, that the god of the Old Testament was actually evil. It was strongly influenced by Zorastrianism, various schools of Greek philosophy, Judaism and Christianity, among other movements. It would be more accurate to call it a completely different religion.

In as far as it was strongly influenced by Christianity, it was a second century movement. That is, it developed in an environment that had an established Christianity. It was not the twin brother of Christianity, as one would expect if it grew out of some followers of Jesus; it was significantly younger.
 
I don’t think it would contradict any defined Catholic dogma if Mary Magdalene and Jesus were married. I don’t think they were married, but they may have been sexually attracted to each other. Certainly Mary Magdalene may have been sexually attracted to Jesus. And I’m guessing that Jesus being fully man, may have been sexually attracted to her. I say “may” because I don’t know.

Being sexually attracted to another is not a sin.

Just thinking out loud.
 
Luke 8:1-2 And it came to pass afterward, that he went throughout every city and village, preaching and shewing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God: and the twelve were with him, And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils,

The Scriptures plainly teach that Jesus healed her of demons. There is no reference to Him ever being with a partner of any sex, outside of teaching the apostles, and having friends that entertained or hosted them. To even consider that God would have relations with any of us, outside of His redeeming work, is blasphemy.
 
Davinci Code was not the first to suggest this as there are several books out there written by super feminists who like to spread this rumor. I watched a movie on Sci Fi channel, I believe it was called “The Relic” and although I have only read parts of my daughters copy of Divinci Code (we had a long discussion about the facts) and it seemed similar. They brought up the whole female symbolism thing, visited Les-Saintes Maries-de la-Mer, included the Knights Templar, Holy Grail but this ended up that Mary and Jesus both had children and their great grandchildren, main characters of the movie mated and gave birth to Christ’s second coming. I didn’t pay much attention as I was falling in and out fo sleep but it seems that Dan Brown wasn’t the first and won’t be the last to make public this heresy.

Tim
 
When I first heard this heresy and many of my Catholic friends were beginning to contemplate this as a possiblity,(Mary Magdelene and Jesus being sexually involved) it struck me that if we, the Church are the bride and Jesus is our Bridegroom, then wouldn’t a sexual relationship between Jesus and a woman be considered spiritual adultary???:hmmm:
 
  1. There is no mention in the bible of a sexual relationship between Mary Magdalene and Jesus.
  2. The Church, according to tradition, is the spiritual bride of Jesus.
  3. There is no mention of Mary Magdalene’s age in the bible. She may have been post meopausal! On what evidence do we imagine that she was Jesus’ age?
 
40.png
yinekka:
The Church, according to tradition, is the spiritual bride of Jesus.
Click to expand...
Precisely! 👍 Jesus never married because the Church is his Bride. For Jesus to have married Mary Magdalene (or any other woman) would have been adultery (or perhaps bigamy). Jesus is not a Moslem, he has ONE wife, not a harem.
 
40.png
RNRobert:
Precisely! 👍 Jesus never married because the Church is his Bride. For Jesus to have married Mary Magdalene (or any other woman) would have been adultery (or perhaps bigamy). Jesus is not a Moslem, he has ONE wife, not a harem.
Click to expand...
I’m glad to see someone else agrees with me,. When I mentioned this to our Adult Faith Director, he laughed at me! But it makes total sense.
 
I remember having read somewhere that this idea first gained popularity about two hundred years ago in Great Britain. This, unfortunately, was a long time ago, and I can’t be certain where I read it. I think it was in a book I found on heterodox opinions in general.
 
This thread has raised the thought of a married Jesus which, after some consideration, I feel certain simply could not be - to Mary Magdalane or to anyone else. As some have observed, a man on a divine mission simply couldn’t give himself to a wife the way a husband is meant to give himself to his wife.

For many, the thought of living without the partnership of a spouse seems impossible, but Jesus indicates that it is possible, at least for some:

[His] disciples said to him, “If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”
11
He answered, “Not all can accept [this] word, but only those to whom that is granted.
12
Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.”

I am firmly convinced that Jesus found complete satisfaction in giving his life to the service of God’s plan for the salvation of humanity.

Is that really so amazing. There are men who loose themselves utterly in their pursuit of a career or running a business. So much so that they loose touch with a wife if they ever had one in the first place.

Just a few thoughts

-Jim
 
40.png
puppylove:
Emmy:

I am a cradle Catholic, but in no way an expert. If my memory serves me right, this is what I remember from my years of cathechism.

Mary Magdalene, who was an adultress, was about to be stoned to death by a crowd, when Jesus came upon them. He told the crowd, “He who is without sin should cast the first stone.” They all eventually threw down their stones and walked away. Then Jesus said, “Woman, go and sin no more.”
Click to expand...
There is no evidence that Mary of Magdala was the adulteress who was brought to Jesus as a trick. The woman in that motif is another woman.

On the other hand there is strong evidence that Mary of Magdala was indeed a prostitute, and she is named as the woman out of whom seven devils were cast out. She is the woman who washed the feet of Jesus with her tears and then dried his feet with her hair. It follows logically in Luke’s Gospel, where the woman is forgiven and then she is amongst the other women accompanying Jesus.

Maggie
 
40.png
timfoley:
Davinci Code was not the first to suggest this as there are several books out there written by super feminists who like to spread this rumor. I watched a movie on Sci Fi channel, I believe it was called “The Relic” and although I have only read parts of my daughters copy of Divinci Code (we had a long discussion about the facts) and it seemed similar. They brought up the whole female symbolism thing, visited Les-Saintes Maries-de la-Mer, included the Knights Templar, Holy Grail but this ended up that Mary and Jesus both had children and their great grandchildren, main characters of the movie mated and gave birth to Christ’s second coming. I didn’t pay much attention as I was falling in and out fo sleep but it seems that Dan Brown wasn’t the first and won’t be the last to make public this heresy.

Tim
Click to expand...
I agree with Tim on this one, but want to add a little bit more in the way of information. I think that you will find that the story of Jesus and Mary of Magdala being “married” comes from the alleged or I should say the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas. The other writer who has propagated this tale is Barbara Thiering. She has written at least 4 books on the subject, and not only did she claim that Jesus did not die on the Cross, she said that he had three wives - Mary of Magdala and Lydia were two of them. Her last book “The Gospel that Jesus wrote” was based solely on the Gospel of Thomas. Talk about getting off track with Christianity!!

Maggie
 
We don’t know if Mary Magdalene was sexually attractive or of child bearing age. She may have been a mature woman.
 
40.png
Didi:
I remember talk of Jesus and Mary Magdalene being lovers way back when the musical Jesus Christ Superstar came out (in the '70s?), and with the song Mary sings “I Don’t Know How to Love Him.” The words are not exactly orthodox! This heresy probably dates way back in time…
Click to expand...
I never thought the song from the character related to sexual love scenario, or any sort of husband and wife-type romance, but more or less the question of how do I lvoe spiritually, which so few people know or ask.

I’m sick of hearing about the husband-wife thing too. I think it is very odd for Jesus not to have been married, considering his time and cluture, but at the same time, if he were married and had children, then I believe that Christianity would have had problems with schisms that did not leave, and the gospel writings would have reflected different interpretations on who is best suited for leadership, with one organized camp caliming that it the person should not be Peter, but the son of Jesus…particularly since Jesus was divinity.

I think the hoopla about the marriage talk distracts from the importance of his life, which was his message and his example. Whether or not he was married, does nothing to change his message.

And I don’t think it is the least bit helpful to women, to claim that Mary Magdalene was improtant because she was married to Jesus. The emphasis on marriage nulifies the importance of Mary’s relationship as a an individual, as friend to Jesus equal to the male apostles (very revolutionary of Jesus to let women partake in close friendship), and her role in the early Church’s ministry (which was enver denied or defamed by Eastern rite Catholics; who believe she financed part of his ministry and even appealed to Ceasar to complain of the injust trial Jesus experienced).

Traditionally many Marys and characters in the Bible have been rolled into two persons: either the Virgin or Mary Magdalene, when Catholic scholars now agree that there should have been separate characters for Mary of Bethany, and the penitent prostitute, among others. I think that if Mary Magdalen were Jesus’ spouse, than all of this confusion would have not existed for so long.
 
Maddalena said:
Ok, Mary Magdalene is my favorite saint, and it really bugs me when people are like, “Mary Magdalene and Jesus were married” or, “Mary Magdalene was pregnant with Jesus’s baby.” One of the reasons why she is my favorite is because I think it’s really amazing how close Jesus and Mary M. were FRIEND-WISE. I had never seen an instance where two people were so close unless they were family or married. My question is what started all of those stupid rumors about them being lovers? Did it start when that movie the Last Temptation of Christ came out? Or have people always wondered that?
Click to expand...
Anne Catherine Emmerich gives a total oversight on Mary Magdalene. Mary Magdalene was the yougest of four siblings if memory serves. Lazarus was the eldest and follwed by Martha, Mary (the Silent) and Magdalena. It was not uncommon to name children with the same name.

Jesus embraced Lazarus as his friend because Lazarus was a generous, kind and compassionate man…he had the qualities that saints most often have.

Magdalene’s parents died when she was very young child. She inherited an estate from the parents’ legacy…the estate was called, “Magdalena.” This is why she was named “Magdalena” because of her inheritance.

Mary was affluent but dissolute and heard Jesus speak at a sermon at the age of about 25. His words touched her soul that later on she became a follower of Jesus along with her siblings.

Anyway, the book clears up all of the contrived notions and shows that Magdalene saw Jesus as the Son of God and above carnal nature. It was spiritual that can only be understood by others of a spiritual sense. Da Vinci Code does NOT have an iota of spiritual understanding. It attempts to denigrate Jesus’ divinity.:knight1:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top