Mary Magdalene and Jesus

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

In the Bible, after Christ has arisen, Mary goes to hug him and he stops her telling her she could not hold him because he had not ascended to the Father, yet. What exactly does that mean? I've always wondered about that.

And why was Mary Magdalene named a saint?

Thanks and God bless

-- Jackiea (sorry@dontlikespam.com), May 14, 2002

Answers

To the top, please.

-- Jackiea (..@.....), May 14, 2002.

Mary Magdalene was Jesus' lover.

-- Claudina (ck@aol.com), May 14, 2002.

--Claudina,
Jesus Christ is pure and untouched by any woman; Mary Magdalene was consumed with love for Him, as a Christian loves God. She first experienced pure love when she found Jesus. But not love in the flesh. A love which can never end. We are all called to love Him this same way. Jesus is God.



-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), May 14, 2002.


Jackiea,

I dont know the exact reason. But yet I will give it a try.

Jesus did not allow her to touch, so that he may go to the Father to get the final authority stamp from him, namely the eternal life and body(in flesh), which would ultimately complete his resurrection not only in spirit but also in flesh.

Since it was the Father who sent his only son to be sacrificed for our sins.

God Bless, Xavier

-- Xavier (xavier_david24@yahoo.com), May 15, 2002.


Jackiea,

We recently had a sermon on that reading. The priest explained that Jesus was telling (or showing) Mary Magdalene that she will no longer be able to rely on Jesus being there physically as she had in the past. Since Jesus would be ascending to Heaven (speaking of which, why is Ascension Thursday no longer a day of obligation!!!!), Mary M. had to begin to get used to His absence.

-- Glenn (glenn@excite.com), May 15, 2002.



Hi Jackiea:

I remember hearing that the reason was because His body was glorified and holy and that human touch would contaminate Him. He needed to be reunited, first, to the Father!

Love, Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), May 15, 2002.


Some very good reasons there. Thanks for the help. :) Except the first. That kinda wasn't the angle I was going for there, thank ya very much.

So, why was she named a saint? I thought saints have to have something miraculous attributed to them. What was that in her case? Anyone know? Thanks!

God bless~

-- Jackiea (sorry@dontlikespam.com), May 15, 2002.


Dear Jackiea, Both Mary and Joseph, as the parents of Jesus, were held in high esteem because they were chosen for the roles they played in the life of Jesus. They are both named saints although I don't think you could say that they performed anything miraculous. This especially pertains to St. Joseph as he seems to sort of drop out of the bible stories after his duty as the step-father of Jesus is finished.

In the case of Mary Magdalene, it is pretty obvious that she was important to Jesus as He chose her to appear to first after He rose from the dead. I don't think we will ever be really certain of her importance in His life other than the fact that she followed Him and the Apostles in delivering His message. There are so many Marys in the bible that it becomes confusing as what is attributed to whom. Also, there are many who chose to believe that Mary Magdalene is the "woman" referred to in some New Tesrament stories. I am not one of these, as I figure since everybody knew her name, they would have used it and not used "woman." I think since she obviously followed Jesus and was given the great privlege of seeing Him first after he rose from the dead, the Church realized her importance and named he a saint.

I would also like to point out that just because a person is named a saint on earth it does not make them any more holy in heaven than other holy people not named on earth. The designation of "saint" is something that man has used to recognize the life and holy works that we can see and prove here on earth. I would be willing to bet that are millions of "saints" unnamed by us humans because we just didn't see what they did or can't prove it. It is sort of like in battle-- many men get a medal because of what others see them do, but many do lots of heroic things that aren't seen so therefore are never recognized. When the early Christians were martyred a few were named to sainthood, but many were missed. This doesn't make the unnamed any less holy or their lives any less meaninful. Ellen

-- Ellen K. Hornby (dkh@canada.com), May 20, 2002.


Dear Jackie:
Let's keep in mind nobody had to canonize the apostles, nor Our Blessed Mother. In the mere fact they are recorded in the gospels in complete communion of love with the Son of God, we're assured of their holiness and grace. Were they sinners? Not Mary the mother of Jesus; but all the rest must have been. Yet, in their love for Him, and the closeness they had to Him, they were seen as saints from the beginning. --One such saint is Mary Magdalene. You must be aware that a Judas, on the other hand-- by his acts as we see recorded in the gospels, would not be at all distinguished for his virtues. But Magdalene was; and she's a saint forever. The same with Saint Paul, and many who came later. The love they showed in life and death for Jesus Christ made any later canonization a complete formality if not non-existent.

Even then, though I've never had cause to investigate; I would be willing to say that there HAVE been miracles attributed to Saint Mary Magdalene's intercession somewhere in the past. Whether they'd be documented or just ''traditional'', we ought to assume she has prayed for a sinner or two; and may have been granted an answer by Our Lord, who knew her and loved her. He is the One who answers all our prayers, no matter who is interceeding for us.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), May 20, 2002.


LEONARDO DA VINCI'S THE LAST SUPPER HAS MARY ON HIS LEFT IF YOU TAKE A CLOSER LOOK. MARY WAS NO PROSTITUE BUT WAS A HIGH PRIESTESS FROM THE TRIBE OF BENJAMIN, HAD JESUS AND MARY MARRIED THEN THE TRIBES OF BENJAMIN(SAUL) AND THE TRIBES OF JESSE ( DAVID/JESUS) WOULD HAVE CAME TOGETHER THUS SOLOMONS LINEAGE, THUS JESUS THE NEXT KING OF THE JEWS.

-- Terry (t.scan@optusnet.com .au), October 28, 2003.


HI Terry.

But, consider this:

The painting was done by Leonardo Da Vinci. He was trying to perpetuate a falsehood. He was a heretic, of course he would paint Magdalene in the Last Supper instead of John.

rod..

..

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 28, 2003.


Oh, I forgot.

Leonardo also painted himself in the Last Supper. Uh.....I don't think Leonardo was invited to the Last Supper, do you?

rod..



-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 28, 2003.


Actually, there are a number of theories that suggest that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were perhaps married and that she was his ultimate chalice, the vessel for his blood, his line. Research the Priory of Zion/Sion. Whether or not they were married, she was much closer to him than the Church-authorized gospels suggest.

-- Rachel Smith (raykowalczyk@yahoo.com), November 04, 2003.

no, more filthy lies spread by an unGodly book called "the da vinci code."

i think somebody remarked that nobody could ever believe such a farse, but we are seeing, in the perverse postings of this thread, the direct effect of such disgusting fiction.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), November 04, 2003.


I'm sure the author of "The Da Vinci Code" will be raking in tons of money. He has made appearances on t.v. promoting his book and blasphemy. I hope he has some good explanations on judgement day. I wouldn't want to be in his shoes, even if they are high dollar shoes.

rod..



-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 04, 2003.



Why would Jesus, a jewish prophet, well repected at a grass-roots and possibly higher political levels, go against the traditional jewish values and not take a wife? Because it would tarnish him and make him unworhty...because he was divine? Spare me. Wake up and smell the coffee. Better yet do some research on the topic of biblical and pre-biblical cultural history. Christianity (Catholicism)as we know it started of as a political party platform for the last roman Emperor Constantine, and grew by hook and by crook to be the most effective means of mass crowd control to date. Challenged only by capitalism.

-- ds (dskelto@msn.com), November 04, 2003.

ds,

There has been a multitude of those wishing to discredit Jesus...

Where is the evidence that those far more capable and with far more resources than yourself have yet to uncover? -this conjecture will continue well beyond our mortal days -the reply to such nonsense will also continue to be espoused -- put up or shut up :)

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), November 04, 2003.


I was reading more about Mary Magdalene because I found out about the Da Vinci Code from one of my office friends. I think that's pretty facinating actually. Many say that she wasn't a prostitute and that she was Jesus's wife. I don't see why there is such a big controversy about the fact that Jesus was married. According to the Jewish customs, a Rabbi should have been married. Jesus was a Jew and I think a lot of people forget about that. He followed and obeyed the laws and Jewish customs.

I also believe that there was a great significance that he showed up first to Mary Magdalene after his death. None of the words in the Bible were written without purpose and the order of practically all events are important and have a greater meaning to it than meets the eye. I'm going to look into that and see if I can find anything about why he didn't want to be touched. And plus. Why would she want to come and hug him if he wasn't close to her? Wasn't it a bad thing for a woman to touch a man that wasn't her husband? Or maybe I'm thinking about a different culture.

Anyway, I didn't know she was named a saint... so I don't really know that answer to your question. Maybe if I find out more about her, I'll be able to answer that question for you. Until then, I hope you keep searching.

The Da Vinci code is definitely stirring things up. It's almost like someone is telling the world that it's round, not flat. I'm not supporting the Da Vinci code and telling people it's completely right. I'm just saying it shouldn't be looked down upon or ridiculed. It's an idea people don't like to hear because it's different. Not only that, I think it shows how human he was. He was both God and man at the same time.

Why is it such a big deal that Jesus was married? Is it because sex is supposed to be a sin? In my honest opinion, sex is not suppose to be a bad thing. I think what it's suppose to do is share their love emotionally as well as physically. It becomes a sin when it is out of wedlock or when it is abused, such as adultery, prostitution, homosexuality and rape. Sex shows how much people love each other and how much they are committed to one another. Without having sex with the opposite sex (sorry, no pun intended), none of us would be here right now. I don't know about you, but my dad or mom didn't chop a finger off and then I grew from a petri dish. I was born because they shared their marriage bed. Maybe later in the years, biotechology and microbiology can make a human grow by mixing two fingers in a petri dish. But I honestly think that they would be lacking many important traits that science would never be able to explain or recreate. Okay, that was way off the subject. What I was getting at is sex is a necessity for life to be created. Why would something like that be a sin? Abuse of anything good can become bad... which is why I think sex is portrayed so negatively.

It always amazed me on how much emphasis was on people being married in the bible, yet Jesus wasn't married. How can he preach and tell people what to do if he hasn't experienced marriage himself? Also, if he didn't walk the walk, how could he talk the talk. I honestly think Jesus was probably tempted by adultery through some other means, but he didn't succumb to it.

Many people think Da Vinci was a nut. He was a man with crazy ideas. But you can say the same thing to many others, like Issac Newton, Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell (even if he didn't invent the telephone, he still had some crazy ideas), and Christopher Columbus. I think people who have offbeat ideas are the ones with revolutionary movements. The renaissance wasn't just about art and literature, but about people's change in ideas and outlook upon life.

Christianity itself was brought out by a miracle and an offbeat situation. The resurrection of Christ. I know more than enough people who think that is a crazy idea and haven't hesitated to tell me so. Well, it's one of the basis of Christianity. Actually, it's what separates any religion from Christianity is the birth and death of Jesus Christ who came to die for our sinful nature.

I believe Jesus Christ came and died for my sins. Hard to swallow for some because it's new and different. So, why is it so hard to believe that a human being like Jesus was married? I'll never know. And personally, in my book, Jesus is still my savior and Lord.... married or unmarried. He was pure. A man without sin who came to this world to take mine away. That's the most important message that the bible brings to us and we shouldn't forget that. The message we should be sharing to others is that Christ is alive... not about if he was married or not.

-- Ives (itsallgood@idontlikespameither.com), November 04, 2003.


Everybody wants to sell a book or two and morbid curiosities sell books. I've read some stuff that really takes the cake. Jesus was a millitant leader who was bent on reinstating the Pharaonic system that He was entitled to? Give me a break!

rod..

..



-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 04, 2003.


Dear Ives:
It's clear you know nothing about the Catholic Church. If you did, you'd realise the Church is where our Holy Bible came from. Men whom God chose to write His Holy Word were in the Church from the beginning. Not the Roman emperor !

And, Yes-- Mary Magdalene is a saint in the same Church. She is prominent in the gospel narratives as well. These were written for us by Catholic saints, the evangelists, apostles and other saints. Her great love for Our Saviour was a pure, saintly love. The same love all His Church had for Jesus; holy and proper; because all of them knew He was God the Son!

The Holy Spirit is in the Church too. Jesus sent the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit upon the Church to remain. He still abides in the Church.

Why am I explaining this? It's simple: The Holy Spirit has no cause to hide anything Jesus Christ did or was, in the Bible, or from the Church! You're right; there isn't anything sinful or even scandalous about marriage. If Christ had been a married man, the Bible would say so-- because the Church would clearly say so, and above all, the Holy Spirit would have made it known as a revealed truth; same as He oversees every other truth in Christ's life and the lives of His apostles, disciples and His Church! No one with half a mind and other than BIASED would claim this ''marriage'' had to be concealed from the faithful. Christ would have told us Himself! He wasn't a liar, as this ''novel'' tries to make Him!

In the blasphemous novel, we are asked to accept first: That Magdalene was opposed by other apostles. Ridiculous! She is a great saint of the Catholic Church! Second; that the Church is corrupt from the beginning; and that the emperor had the Bible re-written! He never even MET the apostles. He never knew Magdalene or Jesus. He became a Christian in the last hours of his life! There's so much preposterous anti-Catholic tripe written into this plot-- we know the book is evil from the word GO!

If it is a success, nothing will be done for the true faith, except grievous harm. Who benefits? Christians? No-- the enemy, Satan --and Anti-Chrsit.

We have to take small cofort for all this by just remembering-- Christ prophesied the coming of tribulations and great sorrows. None of it is unexpected.

Many who will just be thrilled with a crude book like ''Da Vinci Code'' are falling under Satan's power; they are doomed. It's prophesied by Saint Paul: 2nd Thes 2:8; the ''wicked one, whom Jesus will slay with the breath of His mouth; destroy with the brightness of His coming''-- will have many followers. They'll go down to damnation with him. He is Anti-Christ.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 04, 2003.


Jackiea- "she could not hold him because he had not ascended to the father" it seems obvious that Jesus is saying that im am no longer of physical structure in your, Mary's world. Mary is alive- Jesus has died, but is still able to be seen. An apparition? A ghost? i think not though always a possibility. Jesus is a memory Someone said something about the absolute impossibilty of the church spreading false information... Are you for real? Take a step outside for some fresh air, open your eyes and ears and the words of god will be absorbed

-- asher greenfield (asherluvsu@hotmail.com), November 17, 2003.

A ghost? An apparition? Not according to the Word of God ...

"While they were telling these things, He Himself stood in their midst and said to them, "Peace be to you." But they were startled and frightened and thought that they were seeing a spirit. And He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have. And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet. While they still could not believe it because of their joy and amazement, He said to them, "Have you anything here to eat?" They gave Him a piece of a broiled fish; and He took it and ate it before them." (Luke 24:36-43)

The Apostles THOUGHT they were seeing a ghost. Jesus told them straight out that He was NOT a ghost, but the same flesh and blood man they had seen crucified. Even then they had doubts, so Jesus proved it to them by doing something a ghost cannot do - eating solid food in their presence.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 17, 2003.


Well, Asher:
I'm a friend of all good Jews. Others here will tell you I acknowledge joyfully the Jewish descent of Our Holy Redeemer --as well as the Most Blessed Virgin Mary;

You may not love us, Asher. We didn't have a promise like your people had; to cause you to regard the Gentiles as nothing but comedy.

But Our Lord is not just yours. You could love Him yourself, knowing how truly great He is;

--The Son of the Living God. Revealed to the Gentiles ! ! ! --Just sets your heart to thumping, doesn't it?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 18, 2003.


At the time, it was very rare for a Jewish man in his thirties, that is Jesus Chris not to have a female companion. I believe, truly that Mary Magdalene and Jesus Christ were married or linked together in a romantic way. What about the passage where the disciple says “Why do you love her more than you love all of us?” Or the passage that says “He would often kiss her on the mouth…” I think you’re all blinded by what the church tells you to believe, not by what is obvious. This isn’t a personal attack, and I believe in God just as much as all of you….but I believe Jesus was infact married to Mary Magdalene.

-- Sarah (Sarahlsb11@cs.com), November 19, 2003.

What about the passage where the disciple says “Why do you love her more than you love all of us?” Or the passage that says “He would often kiss her on the mouth…”

Whoah - what are you reading? If this is indeed the Bible, could you throw in a couple of chapter and verse numbers?

-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), November 19, 2003.


Sarah,

Actually it was not at all unusual for Jewish men to remain unmarried into their 30's or later. Typically a Jewish boy would work as an apprentice to some older man, learn a trade, become established in business, and have a means of self-support before he would think of marrying. The women of course married much younger, since a 35-year old man might very well choose an 18 year old bride. In any case, none of this really has any relevance to Jesus, who was not simply "a Jewish man in his thirties", but the Almightly and Eternal God. Regardless of the Jewish social customs of the time, it was not at all unusual for God not to have a girlfriend.

The first passage you quote sounds like a bastardization of John 21:15 ... when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love Me more than these?" I have never heard the passage as you stated it, from any written source, scriptural or apocryphal. Have you? Your second quote is at least identifiable. It is from the so-called "Gospel of Phillip", an apocryphal work which is not part of scripture, and carries no authority whatsoever. Quotes from such sources are really irrelevant. If you don't have an authoritative source to support your theories, why quote anything?

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 19, 2003.


I think that Mary Magdalene was made a saint because of a tradition that the lived out the rest of her life as a holy hermit. The Catholic traditions put her in France where she lived her hermit- existence in a cave. The Eastern Orthodox Church says she lived the rest of her life in Ephesis.

The biblical Gospels don't say much about Mary. The quotes about her being especially loved by Jesus and the most important disciple come from the writings of Gnostic Christians that were not included in the Bible. There is a good collection of these in LOST SCRIPTURES by Bart Ehrman.

The Gnostic Gospels are a good insight into some very different ideas and stories that can be founf in the early Church. They are not very good historical or biographical sources though. The earliest of them was written about 200 years after Christ and the Gnostics were much more concerned with making theological points than with recounting history.

I believe the passage you are referring to is John 20:1-18. You may never get a very satisfactory answer for the passage is mysterious and I have seen many unconvincing answers attempted. In the New Testament Greek the meaning of his words to Mary is closer to "Don't hold me" or "Let go of me" than it is to "Don't touch me." This suggests that she actually has embraced him before he said anything.

My best interpretation is that the risen Jesus knows he has things he has to do. As much as Mary would like to hold onto him and as much as he might like to remain, his mission will not allow it. It is similar to the transfiguration story when Peter wants to set up tents for Jesus, Moses and Elijah and stay with them on the mountain. Jesus lets him know that is impossible, the time has come for them to return.

-- matthew (pthameru@hotmail.com), December 10, 2003.


a note for eugene c. chavez - you criticise people for sharing there opinion, and then demoralise it for being different to your own. isnt that the beauty of an opinion? we can all have different ones? also, you jump to criticise books like the da vinci code (again, because it states an idea other to that of your own), but fail to notice blatant similarities in ideals in other books like the amber spyglass, the third installment of the 'his dark materials' trilogy by phillip pullman, which states that there is no afterlife, no heaven and hell, no end of the pain that some people die in, but instead just one big city of the dead, in which the souls of all are invariably sent to, righteous or sinners. now i will agree that the his dark materials trilogy has nothing in it that relates directly to christianity, but there are hidden meanings, and symbolism, as in every book.

also, i would like to share my opinion, which is that if in deed jesus did exsist, he was married (or at least in partership) with mary magdalene, and she did bear his child after he was crucified, and then fled to egypt to give birth to her daughter. there is too much evidence mounting for one side and not enough for the other for me to doubt this. i am not christian, nor in anyway do i follow christ, nor do i beleive in hell, or an afterlife, but i do believe that there is a bloodline, and that mary magdalene and jesus, in fusing the two royal lines of the time, began this bloodline. im sorry if whaty i belive conflicts in anyway with what ytou belive, but as i have said before, that is the beauty of opinions (or beliefs).

think seriously abiout all the ties mary magdalene and jesus have, how much sense it makes for them to be linked andfor them to have a child and a royal bloodline, then write back. and try to see others points of view before you judge. im not saying what you believe is wrong, just that there is always more than one side to a story, and in this case, with something this important, all sides should be viewed equally and without bias before final judgement can be made.

and dont say ill go to hell for saying (or even suggesting this), because, quite simply, thats a load of crap. i prefer rock to easy listening anyway.

over and out

alex

-- alexandria lily mark (gatecrasher031@hotmail.com), January 05, 2004.


Alexandria,
There is absolutely no historical basis for saying that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene or anyone else.

The only thing you will find as far as recent works in this area are fictional novels proposing the idea. These novels have made a lot of money for the authors but they are not historically accurate. One of the most recent is a novel called The DaVinci Code. I am almost finished reading it now, and can see why people might believe that what he is saying is true. The author uses a technique where he mixes true and historically accurate with some pretty wild fiction. He can weave both into one sentance in such a way as you would think it is actually true. But it isn't, it is purely fiction.

Did Leonardo include Mary Magdalene in his “Last Supper”?
Most art scholars say no. The figure reputed to be Mary Magdalene is actually the beloved disciple John, who is usually depicted young and clean-shaven.

Were Jesus and Mary M. married?
Although there is no way to prove or disprove this, most experts consider it highly unlikely. Their main argument: there is no mention of it in canonical writings.

Was Mary M. a prostitute?
This misperception probably began with a sermon by Pope Gregory the Great in A.D. 591 in which he conflated several figures into one. In 1969 the Vatican officially overruled Gregory.

Are Opus Dei and the Priory of Sion real organizations?
Yes, but there is no indication that either is involved in any plot to conceal or reveal secrets of the Holy Grail.

What is the Holy Grail?
The most widely accepted idea is that it was the cup used by Christ at the Last Supper. Others have hypothesized that it was a secret book. In the 12th century a French abbot claimed to possess it; his silver chalice now resides in the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C.

Did male leaders cover up the true role of women in the early church?
Yes, in the sense that history is written by the winners, and in a patriarchal society, men had a big edge.

What happened to Mary M. after the Resurrection?
Nobody knows. In the Eastern Orthodox tradition, she went to Turkey. A Western legend says she went to Provence.

Is there a secret cache of documents that reveal the true history of Christianity?
No one knows, but scholars are busy analyzing ancient documents found in Egypt in the last century. These texts, known as the Gnostic Gospels, were lost for centuries, and could shed new light on the origins of the church.

Did Leonardo hide clues about church secrets in his paintings? Art historians doubt it.
(from a recent news article in Newsweek)

For more information see:
Disma ntling The Da Vinci Code
The Da Vinci Code
Does 'Code' crack Leonardo?

In Christ,
Bill



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 05, 2004.


In case you miss this from the article Dismantling the Da Vinci Code

Brown uses two Gnostic documents, the Gospel of Philip and the Gospel of Mary, to prove that the Magdalen was Christ’s “companion,” meaning sexual partner. The apostles were jealous that Jesus used to “kiss her on the mouth” and favored her over them. He cites exactly the same passages quoted in Holy Blood, Holy Grail and The Templar Revelation and even picks up the latter’s reference to The Last Temptation of Christ. What these books neglect to mention is the infamous final verse of the Gospel of Thomas. When Peter sneers that “women are not worthy of Life,” Jesus responds, “I myself shall lead her in order to make her male.... For every woman who will make herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.”

I think you will agree that this is Gnostic nonsense.

Read the article.

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 05, 2004.


end italics

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 05, 2004.

To Alexandria Lily:
I can't avoid the impression that you are a juvenile. If i'm mistaken, forgive me; impressions are like ''opinions''-- something you are eager to defend. Juveniles are forgiven for having less than clear ideas, and we must forgive you. You may eventually come out of your fog. I hope so.

Why did you say:

''isnt that the beauty of an opinion? we can all have different ones?'' What's beautiful about holding useless and dumb opinions? And, if we can change a dumb opinion into a better idea, why shouldn't we try, just to set you straight? Or do you like being naive? --''also, i would like to share my opinion,'', you say. OK; now that you've shared this:

''think seriously about all the ties mary magdalene and jesus have, how much sense it makes for them to be linked and for them to have a child and a royal bloodline, then write back.''

Here's a reply. There aren't any ''ties'' revealed in any gospel narrative such as between Magdalene and Jesus Christ. You've been reading too many comic books. Or, stupid novels like Da Vinci Code. ''How much sense-? ? ? it makes for them to be ''linked''--? ? ? About as much sense as linking Jesus Christ to your grandmother. Since He is revealed as the Son of God, Creator of all that is seen and unseen. If you really appreciated good sense, Alexandria Lily, you'd read the life of Christ for yourself. A real Life of Christ. Not transient fiction.

The Da Vinci Code is pop fiction based on ridiculous sources, written for money, not as literature. ''Mary Poppins'' is better literature. Is this too heavy for you? You said that's what opinions are: beautiful. I've just given my opinion.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 05, 2004.


Mary Magdalene was named a saint becayuse she was an apostle and possibly the wife of Jesus. The Catholic church has tried for years to erase this fact from history, but they've failed. The misgamy of the Catholic church is well known. I was raised in a Protestant household, and if the Reformation has taught us anything, it should be not to trust Rome. The current so called cannon was selected by a vote under the auspices of Emporor Constantine and was clearly influnenced by political goals such as attempting to reunify the fracturing Empire. Rome's corruption continues to this day as evidenced by the recent pedeaphilia scandals. The Inquisition of the middle ages was just the latest round of burning books and belivers. I for one am glad that some kind souls had the courage to bury the Nag Hamarabi documents and the Dead Sea Scrolls when the book burning was ordered.

The oldest extant manuscrips of the gosples of Thomas, Philip, and Mary are as old or older than the canocal four, and actually corroborate quite well considering with them anyway. To say that these gospels are "gnostic" as if to imply that they are less trustworthy than "catholic" gosples is silly. Prior to Constantine's purge, the gnostics and the rest of the christans were pretty much one group. Perhaps Thomas and Philip see the Lord Jesus Christ in a different light than the Fab Four, but they're human beings witnessing divine events, it's not like they know everything. I think yhyv has preserved so many accounts of the gospel to avoid one man's failings to corrupt the whole of chistandom.

Most protestants are moving in the right direction by allowing married clergy and preistesses, so perhaps the legacy of Mary Magdalene has finally ovbercome the inequity of Peter.

Sorry-to-rant-so-long-ly yours, Levi

-- Levi Aho (levi@gis.net), January 15, 2004.


"Is it because sex is supposed to be a sin? In my honest opinion, sex is not suppose to be a bad thing. I think what it's suppose to do is share their love emotionally as well as physically."

Ives, the Church most certainly does not think of married sex as sinful. On the contrary -- it is greatly encouraged and thought of as a wonderful thing.

-- AVC (littleflower1976@yahoo.com), January 15, 2004.


This is really sad. That people can read a work of fiction like The Da Vinci Code and actually be fooled into believing it.

Levi - get a clue and do some research. You so quickly believe these lies and take time to defend them here on this forum, but make no effort to explore the truth and understand history. You claim to be a Protestant, but do you realize that Protestants reject the heresies of the The Da Vinci Code as well as Catholics? You don't know anything about your faith and why you believe what you do, if you did, you'd never have been so easily fooled by such fictional garbage.

The Gnostic writings upon which this book was based were rejected from the very beginning by the Apostles who knew Jesus personally and knew he never was married? Do you have any idea who the Gnostics were and why they were writing and circulating these letters in an attempt to distort history and the truth of Jesus Christ? Do you? Do you know that Gnostics forged letters claiming that the letter was written by Paul or Peter or Phillip to give the letter authority, but they were just forgeries. That's why these writings were rejected. Not to hide the truth, but to stop the lies. These so-called hidden letters were written by people who never met Jesus and never understood the truth. Until you understand that these heretics were servants of Satan intent on spreading lies to discredit and destroy the developing Church, you'll never understand the truth.

Jesus and the Apostles warned us that such false teachers and false prophets would be with us. You've fallen victim to their deceit. Think about it.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), January 15, 2004.


Levi,
You are so wrong, your history is in error in too many places to go into here. For a correction, read: http://www.crisismagazine.com/september2003/feature1.htm

Note, don't read FICTION as if it were fact. Even if it is written as fact.

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 15, 2004.


I think Levi is just one more high school boy trying to impress with his sophistication. Let's hope so, because he's still able to learn as he matures, both in human wisdom and spirituality.

He tells us, ''protestants are moving in the right direction by allowing married clergy and priestesses, so perhaps the legacy of Mary Magdalene has finally overcome the inequity of Peter.''

This balderdash would be funny if it weren't absolute proof of youth's waywardness in our lifetime. Once upon a time, a young man would contain himself; from self-consciousness and to keep from embarrassing himself in the company of educated people. But now a lad like Levi wants to instruct everybody!

''Protestants moving ''in the right direction?'' Now we've heard it all! ''THE LEGACY OF MARY MAGDALENE!'' Levi, for heavens sake ! HA HA HA HA!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 15, 2004.


I just love the people who shoot down any religious point of view with "it's not in the Bible" or "that isn't how my religion belives it to be". These are usually the same people who have actually never read the Bible and interpreted it for themselves.

Let me first say that while I am a born again Christian, I follow none of the current denominations or "churches". Churches today are nothing more than power and money hungry organizations. I much prefer to read the Bible myself and gain my own enlightenment from God's word than be spoon fed what a Preacher or Priest wants me to believe.

I won't even touch upon the gnostic vs Canocal Gospel argument. However what I do not understand is how people can say with certainty that Jesus could not have been married. Why not? Some say it would discredit Jesus' divinity. How so? Is marriage a sin? Are sexual relations (witin marriage) a sin? I hope not otherwise mankind was doomed from the start when God told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply.

One must think of the reasons why God gave Jesus to us. First it was so that he may die for our sins. Second so that we may have a first hand teacher of God's wishes for us. Finally Jesus was God in the flesh. He was made to experience the world as a man does, only without sin. Do men not have the natural urge to marry and start a family? Yes we do and it is not wrong nor against God. So why would it be so far fetched as to believe Jesus did not have these same urges and moreso act upon them, when it was against tradition not to marry. Just as it was against tradition not to take up a trade, which Jesus did.

I belive it is very possible that Jesus could have been married. Others belive it's blasphemy, because as I said before "the Bible doesn't say so" or "my church says he wasn't". The Bible doesn't say a lot of things. They must be inferred. Especially when it comes to Christ and his teachings. Everything is symbolic and we must interpret that. Transferring that reasoning, there are many situations that occur in the Gospels that could infer that Jesus and Mary Magdelene were married. It is never said who the wedding in Canna was for. Why did none of the disciples go to Jesus at the cross, yet Mary did? Why did Jesus appear to Mary first and say what he did?

The truth is no one will truely know until they reach the Throne and can ask for themselves. What we can do is read what God has given us and look for truth ourselves. I know I will be criticized for what I've said, called a blashpemer. But I challange each of you to just read the Bible with no preconceived notions of what you have been "told to believe" and understand the Word of God for yourself. You may find something new that you never realized because you never let yourself see it. You let someone else see it for you. No one can deny that curches today vie for power. They fight for it, every denomination. Many churches today violate some of God's basic laws and just look over it or cover it up. Who do you believe, these churches or what you can read for yourself and have the Lord show you? You speak of false prophets, in my opinion today's churches are the closest we can get to "false prophets".

-- D. Rose (rosejd@wku.edu), January 15, 2004.


Sorry just realized something I just said could be misread.

"Just as it was against tradition not to take up a trade, which Jesus did"

This should be read as it was against tradition to not take up a trade, but Jesus did take up a trade. Therefore it would seem reasonable he would follow the other traditions as well.

-- D. Rose (rosejd@wku.edu), January 15, 2004.


Again, these books are FICTION. They have only a smattering of real history in them. This is not a matter of faith, this is a mater of history. Again, don't take my word for it, read some facts:

1) Disma ntling The Da Vinci Code
2) The Da Vinci Code
3) Does 'Code' crack Leonardo?



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 15, 2004.

But I challange each of you to just read the Bible with no preconceived notions of what you have been "told to believe" and understand the Word of God for yourself.

And if you do, you will find nothing in it that says she was Jesus' wife.



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 15, 2004.


"The truth is no one will truely know until they reach the Throne and can ask for themselves. What we can do is read what God has given us and look for truth ourselves."

A: That is certainly true of manmade churches, which have no authoritative source of genuine truth; however, the Church Christ founded can rely on His promise ... "But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into ALL TRUTH" (John 16:13). Therefore, His own Church can indeed know the truth with certainty, here and now. Which is why His Church is called "the pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim 3:15).

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 15, 2004.


No, you will not find anything that says Mary M. was the wife of Jesus. You also won't find anything that says 'start a Catholic religion and a Baptist religion, etc etc, and make sure they all disagree'. But that isn't my point, not totally. My point is for all things, I prefer to read and let God speak to me and show me, not some Priest or Preacher. I will always be the last person to try and force my beliefs onto anyone, I think it's wrong. In fact I hardly have any beliefs. I like what is said in the movie Dogma (which most if not all religions denounce) "it's better to have ideas than beliefs". And I think it is plausible that Jesus could have been married. I also think it would be great if every formed his or her own ideas/beliefs based on what he or she gains from the Bible when they read it for themselves not told about it. But I'll be the last to force this on anyone, becuase in the end what we believe doesn't matter as it will either be proven or disproven in Heaven. All that matters is that we have Faith in our Lord to bring us home.

By the way...this topic has really went off on a tangent, nothing to really do with the original question.

-- David Rose (rosejd@wku.edu), January 15, 2004.


David,
Oh, you are turning this into another Protestant prostelitizing thread! LOL! Nice try! Not very Christian of you, though. Anyway, we have covered this ground a number of times. Be polite, treat this group like someone elses' home. Read the archives, and if you can find a new question to ask, ask it. But realize this is a Catholic forum for Catholics to ask questions about their faith. Not to debate Protestants. If you have a serious question, check the archives for an answer. If it is not there, start a new thread and ask it. Don't be abusive, and don't be accusitory. And don't be crafty. Just an honest Christian asking an honest question, if you have one that we have not already answered.

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 15, 2004.


I'm not quite sure what you mean by "another Protestant prostelitizing thread". I've acutally never really studied Protestantism so not sure what that could mean. I was raised in the Baptist, Catholic, and Church of Christ, but follow none persay.

It wasn't my intention to discredit, or accuse any denomination or anything, sorry if I came across that way. I started out answering the question of my interpretation of Jesus' appearance to Mary and then stated why I think that way. If I came across as crafty or manipulative I'm sorry. Feel free if it's possible to edit anything you may think to be abbusive or accusitory in my posts. I just meant as I said to post my answer of this meeting of Mary and Jesus, but couldn't just type "because I think they could have been married" with no reason as to why I think that.

-- D. Rose (rosejd@wku.edu), January 16, 2004.


Mr. Rose:
Because you are outside the Catholic Church, and so without some divine authority, you fall back on human reason. The first thing you dispute is any validity in the Bible; just because it has no claim on your faith.

But this Holy Bible to which denominations look for certainty is just one product of the teachings of the apostles. All the teaching is a whole within the Church; and for any teaching to be Christian in truth it must proceed from Christ's holy apostles. The church has the apostles' teachings. There is no revealed truth except theirs; the Old Testament notwithstanding. We of the Catholic faith do not force any truth out of holy scripture. Christ didn't command us to do that. He sent a divinely commissioned Church into the world; first the temporal persons of the apostles, and thereafter their successors. It was they who actually gave us God's Word in written form and certified it.

We do not have need of further authorities. It has been taught straight from Jesus' mouth and conveyed to us, his people by those apostles and their legitimate successors in the world.

The only reason for me to inform you of this is: We in the Church do not look for grandiose revelations coming out of nowhere; much less from commercial novels. There is no truth anywhere to be had now to cast new light on the life of Our Saviour. Nor on the person of Mary Magdalene, -- simply on account of your fascination with historical (?) novels. If Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene had really been married or lovers, we would certainly have been told by His Church. There's nothing to hide. All the truth has BEEN given the world. We know this even if you refuse to believe it or accept it for historical truth. We have the truth because God doesn't deceive us. He's incapable of deceit, and Jesus His Holy Son would never have kept His own spouse a dark secret. He was free to marry or stay single and tell everybody the plain truth. What are you worried about? That Jesus didn't have the courage to reveal His hidden spouse to His own Church? COME ON! There is no stigma on marriage at all. We would all agree with you, had the Church truly known of any marriage. It's pure fiction, Sir.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 16, 2004.


From the old Catholic Encyclopedia:

The existence of a Galilean Magdala, the birthplace or home of St. Mary Magdalen (i.e. of Magdala), is indicated by Luke, viii, 2; Mark, xvi, 9; Matt., xxvii, 56, 61; xxviii, 1, and in the parallel passages, John xx, 1, 18. The Talmud distinguishes between two Magdalas only. One was in the east, on the Yarmuk near Gadara (in the Middle Ages Jadar, now Mukes), thus acquiring the name of Magdala Gadar; as a much frequented watering place it was called Magdala Çeba ‘ayya (now El-Hammi, about two hours' journey from the southern end of the lake to the east, near a railway station, Haifa- Dera‘a). According to various passages in the Talmud, there was another Magdala near Tiberias, at a distance from it of about three and three-quarters miles. Only one mile being given in the Palestinian Talmud, several different places have been identified with it; wrongly, however, for according to the parallel passages in the Babylonian Talmud and the context of the passage, the reading must be condemned as an error. This Magdala, perhaps to distinguish it from the place similarly named east of the Jordan, is called Magdala Nunayya, "Magdala of the Fishes", by which its situation near the lake and plentiful fisheries appear to be indicated. According to the Talmud, Magdala was a wealthy town, and was destroyed by the Romans because of the moral depravity of its inhabitants. Josephus gives an account (Bell. jud., III, x) of the taking of a town in Galilee, which was situated on the lake near Tiberias and which had received its Greek name, Taricheć (the Hebrew name is not given), from its prosperous fisheries. Pliny places the town to the south of the lake, and it has been searched for there. But a due regard for the various references in Josephus, who was often in the town and was present at its capture, leaves no doubt that Taricheć lay to the north of Tiberias and thirty stadia from it (about three and three-quarters miles). The identity of Taricheć with Magdala Nunayya is thus as good as established.

from:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09523a.htm



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@Hotmail.com), January 17, 2004.


Wow....everyones so passionate about such a controversial topic...just reading all these messages has confused me....I'm catholic and have just started reading the DaVinci Code... but now I'm confused...someone send me some more info !

thanks, Alissa

-- Alissa (mystic_ibis@hotmail.com), February 21, 2004.


please, as a catholic, put the davinci code down

the book is anti catholic garbage with absolutely NO historical or scriptural basis. If you are going to read it, please remember to always keep in mind that its a work of fiction by an author who is decidedly un catholic...

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), February 21, 2004.


Alisa, Read the note above the I wrote to Alexandra, where I inserted some links that debunk the Da Vinci Code. You need to realize the Da Vinci Code is a novel... that is a work of fiction. The author really has based the novel on some assumptions that are not based in history. He has created a fiction history to support the assumptions. This is not unusual in fiction. What makes this particular work untusual is that he presents it as fact, which it is not. Very little of what he presents in the novel bares up to any scholastic examination. Da Vinci scholars have gone on record saying what he proposes is nonsense. Secular and Catholic historians of the Catholic Church have gone on record saying what he claims as history cannot have occured. Scholars of mid-east history have gone on record saying what he claims as history is non-sense. And the list goes. on.

As fiction, it is a great tale. As history, it is bunk.

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 22, 2004.


but how do u know it's not true??? History may always seem biased to one side.

-- A human (foolsrushin@lamers.com), February 29, 2004.

Foolsrushin,
You don’t just say: ‘what if’ and not provide any documented proof and then say, ‘well it could be that way’. That is not how scholars work. You need to document your proof and ask for a peer review. Well, every historian I know says what Brown wrote was fiction, not fact. Until Brown can actually show objective proof his imagination is based upon some kind of facts, he is simply writing fiction, which is all he has claimed the work to be.

I know the work’s ‘facts’ are not real because of a number of reasons:

1) It has been shown by historians that most of his critical references don't exist
2) It has been shown by historians that most of his founding dates of religious societies that do exist are off by centuries
3) There are even contradictions in the book itself.
The man’s name was Leonardo, not Da Vinci.

Here are just a few detailed problems with the book:

There's no biblical evidence that Jesus had a wife. But there's also nothing to prove indisputably that he didn't marry.

There's no evidence that Mary Magdalene married Jesus or carried his child. And though Brown believes her value has been purposely hidden by a male-chauvinist church, the fact is that she comes off pretty well in the New Testament. After all, she's the one to whom Jesus appears after his resurrection; she's charged with spreading the Good News.

That's probably not Mary Magdalene in the Last Supper painting by Leonardo. Plenty of people have puzzled over this, because the figure to Jesus' right looks like a woman. Most art historians have concluded, though, that the figure must be the disciple John. Other paintings of Leonardo of John show him as a clean shaven young man. If we pretend to believe Brown for a minute and say the figure in the painting is not John, well, where is John in the painting? He wouldn’t be left out, he was the ‘beloved disciple’ after all. Further, the missing chalice is irrelevant. The painting is about Jesus telling his disciples that one of them will betray him.

There may have been a group called the Priory of Sion in 1099, as Brown says. Some sources say the organization was real but disbanded in the 17th century. The current Priory of Sion is nothing more than a social group founded in France in 1956. There's absolutely no evidence that the Priory of Sion has ever been involved in the kind of cover-up that the book describes.

Brown says that Constantine was the person who pushed Jesus as divine, that before then He was not considered divine. This is absolute nonsense. We know, and have proof that early Christians worshiped Jesus as divine long before the Council of Nicea, We have only to go to the New Testament to see that Paul and the Gospel of John both present a divine Jesus, not a mortal human prophet.

In parts of the book Brown says that religion is nonsense and then he creates a religion around the goddess.

In parts of the book Brown belittles divinity, but he creates a goddess and elevates Jesus only as much as necessary to be the spouse of the goddess.

If you have specific questions about the book’s charges, please let me know.

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), February 29, 2004.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ