The "Gospel" of Mary... Secular and Catholic answers needed

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimmyQuinn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JimmyQuinn

Guest
I was just reading about that James Cameron documentary about The Lost Tomb of Jesus… As outlandish as his claims are, one really struck me as being not very well researched.

Why do people use the Gosepl of Mary as if it is a undisputable historic document?

I did some quick calculations to back up my arugment. Its probably riddled with mistakes (my math is poor, so bare with me).

Say, for argument’s sake, that Mary Magdalene was 15 when Jesus was crucified. Say he was crucifed at the earliest possible time in history, 27BC. Say Mary Magdalene lived to 85 more years, to be 100 years old, and then died. This brings us to 112BC.

Most research I’ve read (which isn’t much, please correct me if I’m wrong), dates the Gospel of Mary at about 120-180BC. Say it was written at 120BC. Thats still 8 years too late to be Mary. AND thats assuming Jesus was crucified at 27BC, AND she was 15 at the time. Huge stretch.

What I’m trying to say here is, didn’t I just disprove the Gospel of Mary in a matter of minutes? How can people still use it validly in a historical debate?

I hope that this makes any sort of sense 😛
 
People who take the Gnostic claims to authorship at face value do not understand Gnosticism, which is obsessed with metaphor and symbols.

I think its fairly obvious that the Gnostics did not take the title’s of their texts quite as seriously as people today take them.

I am no expert, but I think some research will probably show that many neo-gnostic movements, are people using Gnosticism for subversive purposes, or desperate to establish the religion as Truth by establishing a historic base- which is contrary to the Gnostic spirit.
 
Another point regarding the Gnostic writings, the earliest finding of the Gospel of Judas was from appx. AD 175-300.

How did Judas ever write any Gospel? He killed himself before Jesus was even crucified.

These Gnostic writings are only useful for historical purposes, that being only because they are old. There’s no evidence of fact or any further supporting documentation of what they assert.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top