Mary Magdalene - What is the Truth?

[Black Diamond Bay]

Originally Posted by nikuman

Maybe I'm just dense, but this thought has never occurred to me. Not a problem for me, just a "huh, I'm an idiot to have not thought of that" sort of moment.

This is the products of hours of speculating about things that don't really matter. The other thing I wonder about is whether perhaps people here are different races, because the heavenly mothers are of different races.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

That is surprising. I have read two academic works that suggested the notion was laughable at best.

That said, I don't see how the existence of a wife changes the ministry of Christ either way.

The late Raymond Brown, a leading Bible scholar and a Catholic, says evidence points to Christ being married, but he couldn't square that with his theology.

The argument is from silence; there are a set of expectations that accompany Jewish boys of that time, one of them being marriage while in their teens. If Christ DIDN'T get married, the Bible would have said he didn't.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

There is no particular reason to think that Jesus had only one wife, is there?

There is no particular reason to know for sure anything about Jesus from an evidentiary standpoint. That being said, one of Christianity's great contributions was to eradicate polygamy among the peoples and lands in its domain, but that happened long after Jesus' purported death and over time. By late antiquity Christianity had established a firm stance in opposition to polygamy but it tolerated the practice for a long time among its barbarous overlords. In the West polygamy has primarily thrived in more backward societies.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

The argument is from silence; there are a set of expectations that accompany Jewish boys of that time, one of them being marriage while in their teens. If Christ DIDN'T get married, the Bible would have said he didn't.

Yes, but Christ was an apocalyptic leader. And apocalyptic figures and movements of the time rejected marriage and all things temporal.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

There is no particular reason to know for sure anything about Jesus from an evidentiary standpoint. That being said, one of Christianity's great contributions was to eradicate polygamy among the peoples and lands in its domain, but that happened long after Jesus' purported death and over time. By late antiquity Christianity had established a firm stance in opposition to polygamy but it tolerated the practice for a long time among its barbarous overlords. In the West polygamy has primarily thrived in more backward societies.

from the man who has had two wives!

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

from the man who has had two wives!

Hey Seattle does it the macho way, he trades her in before she reaches thirty. I guess he's got a few years before he trades in his latest model.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

That is surprising. I have read two academic works that suggested the notion was laughable at best.

That said, I don't see how the existence of a wife changes the ministry of Christ either way.

The notion that the idea can be definitively proven is laughable, indeed. Nevertheless, it would have been VERY unusual for a man of his age to have been unmarried in that culture. If HE wasn't married, Paul certainly would have been. Peter apparently had a mother in-law.

Then again, Christ was an unusual preacher.

Bottom line? There's not enough evidence to definitely say one way or the other. To suggest otherwise, without evidence that nobody has heretofore seen, is indeed laughable.

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by Requiem

I was motivated by a Washington Post article to read Charlotte Allen's book, "The Human Christ: The Search for the Historical Jesus." Although I am not finished reading the book, I am very interested in the opinion of the resident CG experts on the topic of Mary Magdalene. Specifically, what does history actually tell us about her?

Although the book is decidely written from a Catholic perspective, Allen adeptly avoids the sensational approach of Dan Brown. She points out the fact there are no biblical references to MM being a prostitute. MM was named by Mark (15:40-41), and Matthew (27:55-56) as one of the women from Galilee. Luke (8:2) relates the story of seven devils (popularly interpreted as mental illness) being cast from her. She was present at the Crucifixion - although from a distance. What symbolism should we attach to the fact she was the first witness to the Resurrection? Absent that event would MM have remained a footnote to history? John (20:16) eloquently relates how the weeping Magdalene mistakes Him for the gardener. "Jesus saith unto her, 'Mary.' She turned herself and saith unto Him, 'Rabboni,' which is to say, Master." Yet after MM told the disciples what she had seen, there is no further scriptural mention of her.

In 591 Pope Gregory declared that Magdalene, Mary of Bethany and the sinner were one and the same. With that statement he conveniently applied the label of prostitute to MM. The rest is history - or fiction depending on your point of view.

So then, what are your opinions? Are there any official Church positions on the theory that MM and Jesus were married?

When all you fancy pants intellectualls figure it out, CougJunkie, SoCalCougar and myself would just like to know if in fact she did have big knockers, by peasant ancient Israel standards.

Well that and what types of cheese SeatteUte prefers.

That is all..I doubt it.

[UteStar]

Mormons talk about how necessary it is to be married...wouldn't Jesus had to have been married to fulfill the highest calling? I have always assumed that He was married. Much evidence to that, no not really. But, it just made sense to me.

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by UteStar

Mormons talk about how necessary it is to be married...wouldn't Jesus had to have been married to fulfill the highest calling? I have always assumed that He was married. Much evidence to that, no not really. But, it just made sense to me.

And if you were the creator of the mortal tabernacle of your future wife? You thought my question was because I am lecherous? These are deeply important doctrinal questions that might shed light on whether or not all the Cougarboard wives with the falsies will rise on the morning of the first resurrection with Dr. 90210's best work still in tact.